Re: [Jprogramming] @ and @: (atop and at)

['Pascal Jasmin' via Programming]

While I agree on @/@:, I'd keep &/&: even if it makes them inconsistently 
ranked.

The obvious reason for @/@: is that @: is the natural conversion of 
linear/explicit code, and so it may be even more than double productive 
considering ':' is a typo magnet.  at and atop in my strand (double adverb) 
"language" have this nice feature.


The case for &/&: staying the same is that & is a frequent alternative to @ .

I'd organize symbols based on expected frequency.



________________________________
From: Dan Bron <j...@bron.us>
To: J Programming <programm...@jsoftware.com> 
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] @ and @: (atop and at)


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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm