It is not clear to me to which post you were responding. However, we are discussing (or trying to be discussing) Jx primitives and both =.. and =:: make sense in Jx; see the first post on this subject:
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017-September/048957.html On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote: > =.. > > |spelling error > > | =.. > > | ^ > > |[-0] > > > =:: > > |spelling error > > | =:: > > | ^ > > |[-0] > > > It is true that you can use =. and =: in building tacit expressions, but > like using something like 3+2 in writing a tacit expression. It disappears > as when one examines the resultant tacit expression. 5 is found instead of > 3+2. > > > Personally I would not use =: inside a tacit expression. Defining the name > before the tacit expression would be clearer and more readable for others. > =. has possibilities to avoid repeating some expression but the resultant > tacit expression will not be smaller and the assigned expression will be > repeated giving no improvement in readability or size. > > > Your particular expression: > > > ('p'~ , 0 $ 'p' =: ]) 'erling' > > erling > > ('p'~ , 0 $ 'p' =: ]) > > p , 0 $ ] > > > (I fixed the =.. as it makes no sense) > > > Notice the resultant tacit expression. It contains the name p but no > assignment for p. This could lead to all kinds of interesting problem if p > gets redefined. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
