u&n is already defined. Perhaps should do @: . Henry Rich
On Aug 12, 2017 00:15, "Jose Mario Quintana" <[email protected]> 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
