Pepe wrote: > Regarding @ and @:, sometimes I wonder how often users would had used @: > instead of @ if their definitions had been swapped (and &: instead of &, > etc.).
Switching the semantics of @: vs @ (and & vs &: and &. vs &.:) would be top of my list if I had a time machine (well, a time machine that only let me change the initial design of J). BTW Pepe, in the last few months you’ve made some interesting and substantive responses to my posts, and I’ve let them languish. Please don’t think I’m ignoring you, the problem is because they’re interesting and substantive, I want to make an interesting and substantive reply, and that takes time, which I haven’t had in bulk recently. Similar comments apply to Raul and several other Forum members. Sorry guys. -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
