Ok, yeah, I forgot about that. I probably overlooked that part of the spec, originally, or didn't care about it (as I am happy to consider the definition to be an opaque string if the resulting expression is significantly better than the alternative).
That said, I seem to remember that at the time I took the stance that I was still interested in whether that example gave the kinds of results he was looking for, even if it was not suitable as a competitive entry. -- Raul On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan's exercise description was performance-wise mute but quite clear about > tacitness (see, > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015-December/043661.html) > So, it seems to me, the rumblings were justified after all. > > Regarding the lack performance of tacit adverbs (or conjunctions), I do not > recall ever having a need for speed (I could always launch, for instance, a > tacit version of meanie, take a brake, and prepare a cup of coffee while it > is furiously crunching words, just kidding). > > Nevertheless, one can compare the relative performance of the counterparts > of your example adverb (meanie). The purpose of having a toolkit such as > the one shown in the Tacit Toolkit (was dyadic J) thread (see, > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015-December/043757.html) > is to make one's life easier. So, > > NB. Using J Wicked Toolkit script... > > NB. Performance comparison verb... > Cut=. -.&a: @: (<;._2@,~) > st=. (, */&.:>@:(1 2&{))@:(] ; 7!:2@:] ; 6!:2) > stp2=. [ ((('Sentence Space Time')(;:x , <y)'Space * Time') , st&>) LF > Cut ] > stp=. stp2 f. ". o ('0 : 0'c) > > NB. The definitions of the two contestants > > meanie=. 1 :0 NB. Your way > +/ % # > ) > > minie=. (+/ % #)cv adv NB. My wicked way > > stp 666 > _ meanie > _ minie > ) > ┌────────┬─────┬─────────────┬────────────┐ > │Sentence│Space│Time │Space * Time│ > ├────────┼─────┼─────────────┼────────────┤ > │_ meanie│4736 │8.9414424e_6 │0.0423466712│ > ├────────┼─────┼─────────────┼────────────┤ > │_ minie │21376│5.31949556e_5│1.13709537 │ > └────────┴─────┴─────────────┴────────────┘ > > ".&> '_ meanie 1 2 3' ; '_ minie 1 2 3' > 2 2 > > Right, you have a point, meanie is meaner that minie (but no much hope for > a long break while minie is doing its thing though). I am curious do you > have an example where adverbial (or conjunctional) performance might be > critical? Be that as it may, the reason of the out-performance is the > relative lack of support for general adverbial (and conjunctional) tacit > writing. However, J is open source and one can put a remedy: the following > adverb (moe) uses a corresponding Jx Tacit Toolkit, > > moe=. (+/ % #)cv adv NB. Jx Wicked way > > stp 666 > _ meanie > _ minie > _ moe > ) > ┌────────┬─────┬─────────────┬────────────┐ > │Sentence│Space│Time │Space * Time│ > ├────────┼─────┼─────────────┼────────────┤ > │_ meanie│4736 │1.05577445e_5│0.050001478 │ > ├────────┼─────┼─────────────┼────────────┤ > │_ minie │21376│6.20778363e_5│1.32697583 │ > ├────────┼─────┼─────────────┼────────────┤ > │_ moe │2176 │5.5269888e_6 │0.0120267276│ > └────────┴─────┴─────────────┴────────────┘ > > ".&> '_ meanie 1 2 3' ; '_ minie 1 2 3' ; '_ moe 1 2 3' > 2 2 2 > > Apparently moe is meaner than meanie! I do not know, maybe performance of > adverbs (and conjunctions) is quite critical after all ;) > > Incidentally, since apply (128!:2) and ". have been mentioned several times > in this thread I would like to mention that in the latest Jx version (which > is still cooking) apply is now dyadic ".. (128!: is kept for > compatibility), monadic ".. , my favorite wicked verb, is functionally > equivalent to the J Toolkit adverb train, and ~ is what 104!:1 was > previously; that is, an extension of the official ~ (see, > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2013-February/031684.html > and http://www.2bestsystems.com/foundation/j/jx0/index.html). Thus, > > '+:' ".. 1 2 3 > 2 4 6 > > ".. +:`.1 2 3 > 2 4 6 > > '+:'~ 1 2 3 > 2 4 6 > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In that case, while cam and Am themselves are not tacit, they can be >> used to produce tacit expressions (and are considerably simpler in >> construction and more efficient in execution than any comparable tacit >> expression which I have seen). >> >> In a similar vein, the J interpreter, itself, is not tacit, but is an >> important part of any tacit toolkit. >> >> Does that make sense to you? >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- >> Raul >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Jose Mario Quintana >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I am sure that you "can produce examples of these forms where the >> arguments >> > are not referred to explicitly in the sentence(s) that represent the >> > function being defined." However, when you were "hearing rumblings from >> > other people" the representations questioned were (see, >> > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015-December/043676.html >> ), >> > >> > cam >> > 2 : ' u 5!:1<''v''' >> > Am >> > 1 : ' u cam' >> > >> > I do know but arguments seem to be "referred to explicitly." Am I >> missing >> > something? Were you referring to other rumblings from other people >> instead? >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/TacitDefn.htm >> >> >> >> "The predominant form of function definition in APL is explicit in the >> >> sense that the arguments are referred to explicitly in the sentences >> >> that represent the function being defined." >> >> >> >> I can produce examples of these forms where the arguments are not >> >> referred to explicitly in the sentence(s) that represent the function >> >> being defined. I imagine that those cases could be thought of as >> >> tacit. >> >> >> >> For example: >> >> >> >> meanie=: 1 :0 >> >> +/ % # >> >> ) >> >> >> >> But of course, if you mean tacit in some different sense, the rules >> change. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Raul >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Jose Mario Quintana >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > The expression noun define (0 : 0) is meant to produce (ultimately) a >> >> > noun. However, monad define (3 : 0), dyad define (4 : 0), adverb >> define >> >> (1 >> >> > : 0) and conjunction define (2 : 0) produce verbs, adverbs and >> >> > conjunctions; are these (the products) tacit? >> >> > >> >> > Paraphrasing a certain colorful crafty politician: I do not know but >> >> people >> >> > say, or imply, they are explicit; very smart people tell me they are >> not >> >> > tacit; I do not know but... ;) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> That's simpler than what I was thinking of. >> >> >> >> >> >> And that does satisfy my concept of tacit programming, though I think >> >> >> I remember hearing rumblings from other people that this kind of >> thing >> >> >> is not tacit. (Actually, if tacit means "no use of names" then the 3 >> >> >> :'0 :0' definition would also be tacit.) >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Raul >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Jose Mario Quintana >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > getnoun=. ".@:('0 : 0'"_) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > $getnoun'' >> >> >> > 1 2 3 >> >> >> > 4 5 6 >> >> >> > ) >> >> >> > 12 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Raul Miller < >> [email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Wrapping 0 :0 in an explicit verb should be possible: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> getnoun=:3 :'0 :0' >> >> >> >> $getnoun'' >> >> >> >> 1 2 3 >> >> >> >> 4 5 6 >> >> >> >> ) >> >> >> >> 12 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's also possible to do this tacitly, but yeah, doing it tacitly >> >> such >> >> >> >> that it triggers when a verb is executed would be tricky >> (possible, >> >> >> >> but overly verbose to accomplish). Also, not sure if that would >> have >> >> >> >> any uses... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Personally, I rarely even bother using the predefined (noun >> define) >> >> >> >> cover for this. The raw 0 :0 form is actually rather convenient. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Raul >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Matthew Baulch < >> >> [email protected]> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Ok. That explains things well. So the the line(s) containing : >> >> behave >> >> >> >> just >> >> >> >> > as if : is an everyday conjunction. It's the lines AFTER : that >> are >> >> >> >> treated >> >> >> >> > specially. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I suppose that's quite a clear design. I'll re-read the >> >> documentation. >> >> >> >> Like >> >> >> >> > you say, once I know what's going on, these subtle points are >> more >> >> >> likely >> >> >> >> > to stand out. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > ". does indeed have unlimited potential—over the domain of >> >> character >> >> >> >> arrays >> >> >> >> > anyway. I'm trying to wrap this construction in a verb so I can >> >> obtain >> >> >> >> > these multi-line definitions without explicitly calling ". . >> Just >> >> for >> >> >> >> > feelings of purity. It doesn't seem like this can be >> accomplished >> >> >> >> tacitly. >> >> >> >> > I'm starting to think that 0:0 has to appear in each definition, >> >> and >> >> >> so >> >> >> >> > defining such a verb may not be possible. Oh well. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Thanks. : makes sense now. >> >> >> >> > On 12 Feb 2016 2:11 pm, "Henry Rich" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a discussion of >> >> >> 'expressions >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> > right of zero' (such as '-.LF' in '0 : 0 -. LF') >> >> >> >> >> > in either of your links. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No. But that isn't surprising when you understand what's going >> >> on. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 0 : 0 creates a noun. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Because conjunctions are executed before verbs, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 0 : 0 -. LF >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> is the same as >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (0 : 0) -. LF >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (0 : 0) creates a noun that can be used just as any other noun >> is >> >> >> used. >> >> >> >> >> You can add to it, subtract from it, execute it... The (-. LF) >> >> has >> >> >> >> nothing >> >> >> >> >> to do with the execution of (:). What I'm saying is, if you >> are >> >> OK >> >> >> with >> >> >> >> >> something like >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ".;._2 (0 : 0) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [which feeds the result of (0 : 0) into a verb], you should >> ipso >> >> >> facto >> >> >> >> be >> >> >> >> >> OK with >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (0 : 0) -. LF >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> which also feeds that result into a verb, just from the left >> this >> >> >> time. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The (:) in (0 : 0) is executed WHEN (:) IS EXECUTED, i. e. at >> the >> >> >> >> >> appropriate time during the parse [see NuVoc for explanations]. >> >> After >> >> >> >> (:) >> >> >> >> >> has read its fill, execution of the sentence continues. So, you >> >> can >> >> >> have >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (0 : 0) ,&(".;._2) (0 : 0) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1 2 3 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 10 20 30 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 40 50 60 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 70 80 90 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 10 20 30 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 40 50 60 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 70 80 90 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1 2 3 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Two (0 : 0) in one sentence [the parentheses are not required]! >> >> and >> >> >> >> >> executed right-to-left. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (".) has unlimited potential, but often is put to mundane use. >> >> When I >> >> >> >> was >> >> >> >> >> starting with J I felt a frisson of daring when I used it, but >> now >> >> >> it's >> >> >> >> >> just another verb to me. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Henry Rich >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> I'd welcome any correction. >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> Cheers. >> >> >> >> >>> It's pretty well explained at >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/NounExplicitDefinition >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> The question is, How would you know to read that? Suggestions >> >> >> >> welcomed. >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> When you say "expression following the 0", I'm not sure which >> 0 >> >> you >> >> >> >> mean. >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> : is the all-purpose entity creator; the left 0 says 'create a >> >> >> noun', >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> >>> the right >> >> >> >> >>> 0 says 'make that noun from the upcoming lines of input'. >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> Full details are spelled out in several pages starting at >> >> >> >> >>> http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/cor >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> Henry Rich >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> On 2/11/2016 12:55 AM, Matthew Baulch wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> Thanks everyone. This (let's say) creative use of 0 : 0 makes >> >> sense >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> me >> >> >> >> >>>> now. I wonder if it's an accidental consequence of the >> >> >> implementation >> >> >> >> >>>> that >> >> >> >> >>>> allows an expression following the 0, or whether it's a >> >> deliberate >> >> >> >> design >> >> >> >> >>>> decision. Either way, it makes sense to have it documented. >> >> Can't >> >> >> see >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >>>> in >> >> >> >> >>>> NuVoc or the Dictionary. Of course, I may have overlooked it. >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> Honestly, to obtain something simple like multi-line noun >> >> >> >> definitions, ". >> >> >> >> >>>> does seem like quite a heavy-handed tool. It does work >> however, >> >> so >> >> >> I >> >> >> >> >>>> probably shouldn't grumble. >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> Cheers. >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Matthew Baulch < >> >> >> >> [email protected]> >> >> >> >> >>>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> Looking at this more closely now. I'm a bit puzzled about the >> >> use >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> -. >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> here. Obviously this is used here in dyadic form. In x -. LF >> >> the >> >> >> LF >> >> >> >> >>>>> characters are, of course, removed from x. What is the x >> here? >> >> I >> >> >> have >> >> >> >> >>>>> seen >> >> >> >> >>>>> that it works--not doubting that. Just trying to work out >> how. >> >> >> Sorry. >> >> >> >> >>>>> There's probably something obvious I've missed. >> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Raul Miller < >> >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> If you do not have good names for partial calculations, that >> >> >> might be >> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> a sign that you need to think a bit more about the >> >> abstractions >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >>>>>> are using. It can be difficult for other people to read if >> you >> >> >> don't >> >> >> >> >>>>>> make sufficient effort to label your abstractions. >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> Also, I would note that your 'c0' is not a combinator, as >> you >> >> are >> >> >> >> not >> >> >> >> >>>>>> using its dyadic definition. So you might want to use a >> >> different >> >> >> >> name >> >> >> >> >>>>>> for that one. Perhaps: >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> v0=:c0 >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> That said, if you really want to execute really long lines, >> >> you >> >> >> can >> >> >> >> do >> >> >> >> >>>>>> that using ". 0 :0-.LF and indented text. (You need the >> >> >> indentation >> >> >> >> >>>>>> because line feeds will not separate words here.) >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> For example: >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> myStruct=: ". 0 :0-.LF >> >> >> >> >>>>>> v0 p0 c1 p1 c2 p2 c3 p3 c4 p4 c5 p5 c6 p6 c7 p7 c8 p8 >> c9 >> >> p9 >> >> >> >> >>>>>> c10 p10 c11 p11 c12 p12 c13 p13 c14 p14 c15 p15 c16 p16 >> >> c17 >> >> >> >> >>>>>> p17 c18 p18 c19 p19 c20 p20 c21 p21 c22 p22 c23 p23 c24 >> >> p24 >> >> >> >> >>>>>> c25 p25 c26 p26 c27 p27 c28 p28 c29 p29 c30 p30 >> >> >> >> >>>>>> ) >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> I hope this helps, >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> -- >> >> >> >> >>>>>> Raul >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Matthew Baulch < >> >> >> >> [email protected]> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> Suppose I wish to construct a complex, non-regular deeply >> >> nested >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> structure: >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> to model some inherently non-linear system. A natural >> approach >> >> >> (for >> >> >> >> me, >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> anyhow) is to construct a library of combinators, or a >> domain >> >> >> >> specific >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> language, with which to specify the (boxed) structure. >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> J rises easily to the task, and before long I'm looking at >> >> long >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> function >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> trains of the form >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> myStruct =: c0 p0 c1 p1 c2 p2 ... cN pN >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> where the ci are (combinator) verbs, and the pj are >> >> (parameter) >> >> >> >> nouns. >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Nice. Easy. >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Only trouble is, N may be large and J prefers such >> >> statements to >> >> >> >> sit >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> on >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> a >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> single line. Correct? I can split my definition: >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> msPartA =. ..... >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> msPartB =. ..... >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> ..... >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> msPartX =. ..... >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> myStruct =: msPartA msPartB .... msPartX >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> though this feels awkward. The most obvious issue is that >> the >> >> >> >> PartA, >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> ..., >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> PartX are distracting; unless of course I can find a >> natural >> >> way >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> splitting and naming them. Ideally, the parts should be as >> >> close >> >> >> >> to a >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> comfortable line width as possible. Again, awkward. If >> >> myStruct1 >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> myStruct2 have the same partitioning scheme but myStruct2 >> >> (for >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> instance) is >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> much larger than myStruct1, there will be many sparsely, or >> >> many >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> overpopulated lines. Awkward too. >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> I love J. It handles complex regular data so elegantly. >> How >> >> can >> >> >> I >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> bring >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> similar elegance to irregular data? Can my combinators be >> >> >> rescued, >> >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> should I use another approach? >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> > >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
