Hmm.. after re-reading the dictionary definition, I think I was wrong when I said that x $: <: y was the meaning for $: in that second example:
Since no verbs are formed in that sentence, $: just refers to itself as the largest containing verb. Please tell me if you have reason to think I'm wrong about this. Thanks, -- Raul On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > The problem is that we mean different things by 'work'. To me, that means > it behaves the way NuVoc says it does. I get the feeling that to you, > 'works' means it behaves the way you want it to. > > It works, by my meaning. The Dictionary is not precise about the behavior > of $: in explicit definitions. > > Henry Rich > > > On 9/30/2017 6:04 PM, Erling Hellenäs wrote: >> >> I guess it would be impossible to get you to acknowledge that it does not >> work with explicit J in agenda :) /Erling >> >> On 2017-09-30 23:16, Raul Miller wrote: >>> >>> Yes, if you want to explicitly reference the definition of f, you >>> should use the name f (like you used at first), and not $: >>> >>> $: refers to the containing sentence, which in your example was >>> x $: <: y >>> >>> To have $: mean something different you need to use it in a different >>> sentence (which is entirely possible, of course). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
