u&n is already defined.  Perhaps should do @: .

Henry Rich

On Aug 12, 2017 00:15, "Jose Mario Quintana" <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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

Reply via email to