u&n is different than u&v I can understand not doing u@:n though. it would be same as u@n, so quicker not to add the extra parsing rule.
The case for it though is (u@:) becomes an "ambivalent" adverb, that can either be evaluated immediately with a noun, or passed a verb then argument. ________________________________ From: Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> To: Programming forum <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:15 PM Subject: [Jprogramming] J806 New Features I like both: u@n and u::n . However, I wonder why u&n , u&:n and particularly u@:n were not implemented. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
