Obviously nobody would ever enter if. 0 > _. them self. I guess if primitives never produce _. then we need not worry about it; but in the very slight off-chance that a bug lets one slip through, wouldn’t it be safer if an error is thrown?
Anyhow, this topic’s problem is solved; gotta stay up to date! Louis > On 30 Dec 2017, at 01:32, bill lam <bbill....@gmail.com> wrote: > > IMO the current behavior is acceptable for > if. 0 > _. do. etc… > > The user who wrote this sentence must have some special task to accomplish > and can just skip the condition depending on what he/she think the > condition should be true or false or signaling error. > > If the _. is a result of operation on primitive, then it will signal an > error before passing to control structure.i > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
