You might wonder, "Can't there be a special case to handle this for
conditionals?" so that
if. (expression that fails if a<0) *. (a>:0) do.
wouldn't fail. But no: the first expression must be evaluated to see
what part of speech it is:
+: (@:) *. a >: 0
is something completely different.
The language would need new control words to allow incomplete
evaluation. I have added a request for them to
http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/System/Interpreter/Requests
Henry Rich
On 11/6/2017 6:55 AM, Rudolf Sykora wrote:
On 6 November 2017 at 12:49, Linda Alvord <lindaalvor...@outlook.com> wrote:
*. Times any number wil be 0.
(b=:>:a) *. (0<a=._5)
0
b
_4
23*.0
0
Yes, right you are!
Sorry for the noise, it gets always evaluated.
I just got puzzled a bit. Now it's fine again.
Thanks to R. Miller, too.
Sorry again.
Ruda
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
