"u&n is already defined."

Right, I realized that after I posted it. :(

Some of us, for clarity, use   @   instead  of   @:   only when it really
makes a difference.  That is why I would prefer to write  u@:n  instead of
 u@n .

The from  u&:n  would be just to extend the monadic equivalence  u&:v  <=>
 u@:v  for  n  instead of  v .

Thanks

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 5:46 AM, Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Reply via email to