Also, you might want to have a line in an explicit noun that begins with
), and the fewer restrictions on it the better.
Henry Rich
On 6/4/2015 4:57 PM, chris burke wrote:
Any arguments against this change?
Yes, I would argue that while this change is possible, it is probably
undesirable.
I find it hard to read the multiple line expression in your example even
though the code is trivial, and it would be so much harder with a
non-trivial example. So I'd like to discourage this style.
Also, I don't think being able to put single-line comments after the ) on
the last line of an explicit definition very compelling, since multi-line
comments can be put anywhere within the definition.
On 4 June 2015 at 10:41, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <
[email protected]> wrote:
its possible to define nested multiple line expressions such as:
v =. (4 : 0) (3 : 0)
+: y
)
x+y
)
2 v 3
8
A problem is that you cannot place even a comment on the same line as a
closing ')'
It would seem to be a simple modification to the parser to check for the
first character of a line to be ')' or ':', and the parser already takes
out any trailing blanks, so a simple useful change might be to strip out
trailing comments (first) and (then) blanks.
This would have the added benefit of including documentation that is not
inserted into the function, which commenting what part of an expression ')'
is closing should not be anyway.
Any arguments against this change?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
