I really don't care which is faster. I use which is easier for what I want to do. I like tacit because it avoids repeating a name over and over as in non-tacit. I say non-tacit instead of explicit because explicit has to do with explicit definitions.
Often I never even write an explicit definition in solving a problem. I just solve it in immediate mode, sometimes the statements are explicit, sometimes tacit. Often mixed, that is, a tacit expression preceded by an explicit part and maybe another tacit expression. If I have a performance problem, common if solving Project Euler, I have to reevaluate my approach. If I'm doing something that is used a lot, then it makes sense to find bottlenecks. But what is slow today may be fast tomorrow, given new optimization. So what is best for performance today, just for the sake of finding out, is a waste of time. On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Erling Hellenäs <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all ! > > 4(f=. 4 : 'x (4 : ''x'')`(4 : ''s,y +{: s=.x f <: y'')@.(4 :''x < > y'') y' )8 > > 4 9 15 22 30 > > Here we have another example of the Henry syntax: > > 4(f=.(.x (.x).`(.y (. y , x + {: y ). x f <: y).@.(.x < y). y).)8 > > s is here the right unnamed operand of (. y , x + {: y ). . As long as > you have variables, like in explicit code, you can keep s if you want. Like > this: > > 4(f=.(.x (.x).`(. s , y + {: s=. x f <: y).@.(.x < y). y).)8 > > > Cheers, > > Erling > > > > On 2017-09-30 16:24, Erling Hellenäs wrote: > >> Hi all! >> >> Yes, well, I wanted to measure differences between tacit and explicit >> expressions as such, so I tried to avoid unrelated processing time. In >> case you have significant operations, these differences disappear, of >> course, and the processing time in these operations dominate over >> interpretation time or small differences in the code generated. >> It seems better to create an internal loop then to have ts loop a big >> number of times over a very small load, since the measurement process as >> such might dominate in the latter case. >> The way you measure, you have to set v low and n high to avoid processing >> time, and it seems you didn't. >> I understand that these differences might not be important in practice. >> Thanks for your judgement on that. >> Any other opinions about performance differences between tacit and >> explicit code? Are there any cases when they are big? >> >> ts=: 6!:2 , 7!:2@] NB. Time and space >> v=.1 >> n=.5000000 >> n ts'(3 :''-y'')@:- v' >> 3.03253e_6 6784 >> n ts'(-)@:- v' >> 4.83682e_7 1152 >> v=.?~n >> ts'(3 :''-y'')@- v' >> 1.8912 1.34712e9 >> ts'(-)@- v' >> 0.93178 1.34711e9 >> >> Cheers, >> Erling >> >> >> >> >> On 2017-09-30 13:13, bill lam wrote: >> >>> Since the time taking is small, better to run n times >>> to obtain an average. >>> >>> + and - are scalar functions of rank-0, but J has >>> integrated rank support so that there will be no >>> performance penalty if its arguments are arrays. >>> >>> @ will inherent the rank of - , better to use @: in >>> this case. >>> >>> 50 ts'(3 :''-y'')@- v' >>> 0.183617 8.39565e6 >>> 50 ts't@- v' >>> 0.105698 8.3904e6 >>> >>> 50 ts'(3 :''-y'')@:- v' >>> 0.00245378 1.67837e7 >>> 50 ts't@:- v' >>> 0.00206336 8.39002e6 >>> >>> IMO it doesn't matter whether to use tacit or explicit, >>> the more important thing is to understand how J works. >>> >>> >>> Сб, 30 сен 2017, Erling Hellenäs написал(а): >>> >>>> Hi all ! >>>> >>>> Can tacit and explicit J be interchangeably used everywhere ? >>>> >>>> Examples of use: >>>> >>>> 4 (3 :'- y')@:(4 :'x + y') 5 >>>> _9 >>>> 3(4 :'(1: x + y)#''x'' ')`(4 :'(1: x + y)#''y'' ')@.(4 :'x < y')4 >>>> y >>>> >>>> What are the performance implications of using explicit J instead of >>>> tacit >>>> J? >>>> >>>> This little example indicates that tacit J is about twice as fast? >>>> >>>> v=.?~1000000 >>>> 10{.v >>>> 733026 963097 739111 754321 510732 704647 209066 833891 281909 851842 >>>> #v >>>> 1000000 >>>> t=: - >>>> e=: 3 :'-y' >>>> ts't@- v' >>>> 0.49503 2.6439e8 >>>> ts'e@- v' >>>> 0.743922 2.6439e8 >>>> ts'(3 :''-y'')@- v' >>>> 0.38011 2.64395e8 >>>> ts'(-)@- v' >>>> 0.186993 2.6439e8 >>>> ts'-@- v' >>>> 0.182542 2.6439e8 >>>> ts'(3 :''- <: >: y'')@- v' >>>> 0.465578 2.64395e8 >>>> ts'([: - [: <: [: >: ])@- v' >>>> 0.25002 2.64391e8 >>>> *./ (t@- v) = v >>>> 1 >>>> *./ (e@- v) = v >>>> 1 >>>> *./ ((3 :'-y')@- v) = v >>>> 1 >>>> *./ ((-)@- v) = v >>>> 1 >>>> *./ (-@- v) = v >>>> 1 >>>> *./ ((3 :'- <: >: y')@- v) = v >>>> 1 >>>> *./ (([: - [: <: [: >: ])@- v) = v >>>> 1 >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Erling >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2017-09-29 20:10, Erling Hellenäs wrote: >>>> >>>>> An additional comment. see below. /Erling >>>>> >>>>> On 2017-09-29 04:45, Henry Rich wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Taking your last sentence first, you would have to supply some >>>>>> evidence to make me believe that tacit forms have any intrinsic >>>>>> performance penalty. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is dawning on me that you want fast function definition, but that >>>>>> you want it to produce tacit code. You find the current tacit >>>>>> language difficult, and you propose to replace it with something >>>>>> that looks more like the explicit language. That seems like a >>>>>> mistake to me, because: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Most of the responders on this Forum don't agree with you that >>>>>> the tacit language is opaque >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Even with a fast function definition, many J programmers (I dare >>>>>> not say all J programmers with a soul) will always prefer (+ i.) to >>>>>> (. x + i. y). >>>>>> >>>>> This is a strange comparison, (+ i.) is comparable to + i. with >>>>> explicit >>>>> syntax. [ ( + i. ) ] is comparable to x + i. y and ([ (+ i.) ]) is >>>>> comparable to (. x + i. y). >>>>> >>>>>> 3. Tacit code is a different mindset from explicit code. It's >>>>>> functional. It doesn't have assignments or control words >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. Operands to modifiers cannot be arguments to tacit code >>>>>> >>>>>> 5. Explicit syntax is an improvement in some cases, not all. +/ *: >>>>>> y is a little lighter than +/@:* y but (+/ y) % #y is heavier than >>>>>> (+/ % #) y >>>>>> >>>>>> 6. So: even if I were redesigning the language from scratch, I >>>>>> wouldn't represent tacit forms your way. I would, as Roger has >>>>>> observed, switch the meanings of (u v) and (u@:v), but I would keep >>>>>> the rest as is. >>>>>> >>>>>> [Note for those who have not been using J for more than 10 years: >>>>>> the original tacit language allowed trains that produced modifiers. >>>>>> That was, to me, Ken's finest achievement: a really beautiful >>>>>> language, immensely supple, even though it had no syntactic elements >>>>>> but the primitives and parentheses. I never found it wanting. It >>>>>> was fully understood by no more than half a dozen people, I think. >>>>>> It was removed from J because explicit forms could produce the same >>>>>> results: a good business decision, but a loss to computer science >>>>>> and art.] >>>>>> >>>>>> 7. The bottom line: tacit forms work pretty well as they are, and an >>>>>> incompatible change to them could be justified only by a huge >>>>>> improvement in readability or efficiency. You haven't shown that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Henry Rich >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/28/2017 10:09 PM, Erling Hellenäs wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all ! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is improving explicit J the way forward? Or is tacit J and >>>>>>> improving tacit J the way forward? >>>>>>> I also think that "Henry's" proposal, which is similar to what I >>>>>>> have been writing about for a long time, is great. It is easy >>>>>>> to do and have great benefits for people working in explicit J. >>>>>>> They will not have to type lots of double quotes, or write their >>>>>>> own J versions with special duplicate quote functionality. >>>>>>> That doesn't mean that tacit J could not also be improved? >>>>>>> Henry's proposal is nearly identical to my proposal but mine is >>>>>>> about tacit J, it is addressing problems with tacit J. His is >>>>>>> about explicit J. It is addressing problems with explicit J, the >>>>>>> quote duplication problem. I am addressing problems with tacit >>>>>>> J, mainly the problem which makes people write cross-compilers >>>>>>> from explicit to tacit J or programs to automatically pack verb >>>>>>> sequences in tacit J into their packages of brackets and phony >>>>>>> "compositors", like this - f@:(g@:(h@:(i@:(j@:])))). People who >>>>>>> are working professionally with tacit J and who knows that >>>>>>> cheating and writing tacit J like most other people do will slow >>>>>>> their programs much too much? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Erling >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2017-09-29 03:13, Joe Bogner wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I also like Henry's suggestion of fast function definition. It's >>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>> unclear to me on how the Erling's suggestion improves upon that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Louis de Forcrand >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't really understand what you wish to add either, Erling. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you want to use explicit J syntax, you could write an >>>>>>>>> explicit verb. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You write: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Particularly to create what you most commonly need, a sequence of >>>>>>>>>> monadic verbs, each acting on the result of the verb to the right. >>>>>>>>>> Well, it is not complicated as such, but for some >>>>>>>>>> reason people don't >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the obvious way to do it, which is [: f [: g [: h ]. >>>>>>>>>> Then they dive into >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> mess of complications. I mean the cap should not be necessary. >>>>>>>>>> That >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> simple >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> right to left execution should be the default, >>>>>>>>>> possibly modified with >>>>>>>>>> parenthesis. That tacit and explicit J should have >>>>>>>>>> the same basic syntax. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> f@:g@:h? >>>>>>>>> In addition, I disagree with your last two sentences. >>>>>>>>> What's the point of >>>>>>>>> having tacit syntax if it's the same as explicit syntax? If you >>>>>>>>> want >>>>>>>>> explicit syntax, write an explicit verb; other times >>>>>>>>> tacit syntax is really >>>>>>>>> practical. >>>>>>>>> In an explicit verb, simple right to left execution *is* the >>>>>>>>> default. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In any case I don't really see how the rest of your >>>>>>>>> suggestion differs >>>>>>>>> from Henry's (.). verbs, which I like very much by the way. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Louis >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 28 Sep 2017, at 14:53, Raul Miller <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jose's work is impressive, but I try to avoid it >>>>>>>>>> because of the extra >>>>>>>>>> complexity it creates when I want to (for example) >>>>>>>>>> provide a parameter >>>>>>>>>> in clauses for conjunctions like &. -- the extra complexity can >>>>>>>>>> be a >>>>>>>>>> nice mental exercise and maybe even a cure for boredom, but I feel >>>>>>>>>> that I have the right to treat it as unnecessary. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Raul >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Erling Hellenäs >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all ! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am very impressed by Jose's work and I think it is an excellent >>>>>>>>>>> illustration to why we need the modification to J I propose. >>>>>>>>>>> It is extremely complicated to do these things >>>>>>>>>>> which should be simple, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> as I >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> see it. Particularly to create what you most >>>>>>>>>>> commonly need, a sequence >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> monadic verbs, each acting on the result of the verb to the right. >>>>>>>>>>> Well, it is not complicated as such, but for >>>>>>>>>>> some reason people don't >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the obvious way to do it, which is [: f [: g [: h ]. Then they >>>>>>>>>>> dive >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> into a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> mess of complications. I mean the cap should not be necessary. >>>>>>>>>>> That >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> simple >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> right to left execution should be the default, >>>>>>>>>>> possibly modified with >>>>>>>>>>> parenthesis. That tacit and explicit J should have the same basic >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> syntax. I >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> tried my ideas of a different tacit J in a test >>>>>>>>>>> implementation and it >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> great. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>> Erling Hellenäs >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-09-28 05:29, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Erling, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are right, the adverb (At) produces tacit sentences but it >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of Dan's pipeline proposal >>>>>>>>>>>> using strand notation via a >>>>>>>>>>>> Curried adverb (aka, recurrent adverb and multiple adverb). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> However, I have written (tacitly) a tacit >>>>>>>>>>>> Curried adverb (xi) which, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> using >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> a lambda-style syntax, produces a tacit verb >>>>>>>>>>>> which in turn, given its >>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, produces tacit entities. You >>>>>>>>>>>> might find xi interesting; the >>>>>>>>>>>> general form is, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> t=. [: v0 v1 ... vn '...' xi >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The names v0 v1 ... vn should be >>>>>>>>>>>> syntactically verbs (recall, xi is a >>>>>>>>>>>> Curried adverb) but they can represent nouns, verbs, adverbs, or >>>>>>>>>>>> conjunctions. I use undefined names since those are regarded by >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> default >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> verbs (even if xi does not affect in any way >>>>>>>>>>>> the named verbs). The >>>>>>>>>>>> literal >>>>>>>>>>>> '...' represents a quoted J (or more generally a Jx) sentence. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is how your example can be written using xi, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> erase 'b v' >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [: v '([: b ''<:b++/\b-~-.b'' xi >>>>>>>>>>>> <''\''=v){."0 v' xi <'\\\//\\\//' >>>>>>>>>>>> \ >>>>>>>>>>>> \ >>>>>>>>>>>> \ >>>>>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>>>>> \ >>>>>>>>>>>> \ >>>>>>>>>>>> \ >>>>>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is the nuisance of quotes within >>>>>>>>>>>> quotes and the argument must be >>>>>>>>>>>> boxed; however, this allows, in general, the verb (t) to >>>>>>>>>>>> produce a >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> noun, a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> verb, an adverb, or a conjunction and to >>>>>>>>>>>> take multiple boxed nouns, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> verbs, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> adverbs, or conjunctions as its argument. >>>>>>>>>>>> The following verb (t) acts >>>>>>>>>>>> directly on a couple of (boxed) verbs and produces a verb, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> t=. [: u v 'u/@:v' xi >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> t[:+*:]: NB. Sum of squares >>>>>>>>>>>> +/@:*: >>>>>>>>>>>> t[:+*:]: 1 2 3 4 5 >>>>>>>>>>>> 55 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> t[:-%:]: NB. Difference of square roots >>>>>>>>>>>> -/@:%: >>>>>>>>>>>> t[:-%:]: 1 2 3 4 5 >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.55390522 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the Curried higher-order verb (t) >>>>>>>>>>>> is, in effect, acting on >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> arguments: [:-%:]: and 1 2 3 4 5; >>>>>>>>>>>> furthermore, t [:-%:]: performs a >>>>>>>>>>>> partial >>>>>>>>>>>> application of the verb (t) acting on [:-%:]: . >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The following are variations of the verb >>>>>>>>>>>> produced in [0], the verb (t) >>>>>>>>>>>> acts on a (boxed) conjunction and produces an adverb, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> t=. [: u '(ver adv u)&:train/adv' xi >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ]`{.`{:`{: (t [:(<adv@:)]:) NB. Use [:(<'@:')sb in J >>>>>>>>>>>> ]@:({.@:({:@:{:)) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ]`{.`{:`{: (t [:(<adv@ )]:) NB. Use [:(<'@ ')sb in J >>>>>>>>>>>> ]@({.@({:@{:)) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ]`{.`{:`{: (t [:(<adv&:)]:) NB. Use [:(<'&:')sb in J >>>>>>>>>>>> ]&:({.&:({:&:{:)) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> These non-compliant features are not >>>>>>>>>>>> provided by the Jx interpreter; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> are, in fact, inherited from the J >>>>>>>>>>>> interpreter, the Jx facilities just >>>>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>>> them a lot more accessible. Actually, I have written a version >>>>>>>>>>>> (admittedly >>>>>>>>>>>> cumbersome) of xi in J; see [1] for a link >>>>>>>>>>>> to a zip archive and the >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> path >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> a script where xi is defined. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> PS. >>>>>>>>>>>> erase'u0 u1 u2' >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 1 1 >>>>>>>>>>>> [: u0 u1 u2 'u0 + u1 + u2' xi 1 ; 2 ; 3 >>>>>>>>>>>> 6 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> erase'α β γ' >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 1 1 >>>>>>>>>>>> [: u0 u1 u2 'u0 + u1 + u2' xi [:α β γ]: >>>>>>>>>>>> α + β + γ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> References >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0] [Jprogramming] Gerund composed application >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017- >>>>>>>>>>>> September/048797.html >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] J Wicked Toolkit >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.2bestsystems.com/foundation/j/Jx.zip >>>>>>>>>>>> \Jx\J\J Wicked Toolkit.ijs >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Erling Hellenäs >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all ! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pascal, I will come back to your post later. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is a little compiler written in Jx >>>>>>>>>>>>> and compiling, as I understand >>>>>>>>>>>>> it, >>>>>>>>>>>>> tacit code with explicit J syntax into >>>>>>>>>>>>> tacit J. I did not test it, I >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> read the post. >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> August/048143.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The code snippet Farey is an example of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the source code of the little >>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I just think we should not have to use a tacit J compiler from >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> explicit J >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to be able to use explicit J syntax and >>>>>>>>>>>>> get a tacit result, a single >>>>>>>>>>>>> verb. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It would obviously be better to use >>>>>>>>>>>>> explicit J syntax in the first >>>>>>>>>>>>> place, >>>>>>>>>>>>> as i see it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Erling >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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/forum >>>>>>>> s.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forum >>>>>>> s.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>>>>> http://www.avg.com >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forum >>>>>> s.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
