I have, at least, produced code which includes L:_1 in a context in which it is not equivalent to &.>.
Have you considered to get what you want without potentially breaking existing code (e.g., giving meaning to imaginary whole numbers for the right argument of L:)? (It seems that you wrote L" instead of L: a couple of times in the description of your proposal.) On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > I think negative level is wrongly defined. (u L:(-r) y) applies u at > level ((L. y) -r), which measures from the bottom of the tree. What I want > is a form that applies u two levels down, say, which I can't get now. I > propose to change L: to do what I want. > > Has anyone found a use for L:(-r) using the current definition? > > My proposed change is described at https://code.jsoftware.com/wik > i/System/Interpreter/Requests#Change_definition_of_negative_ > level_.28strawman.29 > > Henry Rich > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://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
