A while back <http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-July/015452.html> I asked why
(v0`v1`v2)} y was not defined as (v0 y) (v1 y)} (v2 y) In case it is of interest, Roger's response was: The current defn makes it possible to define f=: v0`v1`v2} such that the monad f uses m} monadically and the dyad f uses m} dyadically. On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:16 AM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming < [email protected]> wrote: > amend and item amend are completely different verbs with the monadic > version much more similar to a "select" operation than an update operation. > (v0`v1`v2)} y is a select verb, that doesn't even match the update > behaviour, and so doesn't need to be made ambivalent to dyadic > x (v0`v1`v2)} y > > my suggestions: > v0`v1} would be (v0 {"0 1&.|: v1) and can/could be called ambivalently > (v0`v1`v2)}y would be (v0 y) (v1 y)} ( v2 y) (calling amend even > monadically... and also the same verb as dyadic call > > I would suggest that the entire history of use for v0`v1`v2} y has been a > mistaken omission of the x parameter on an intended amend call. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
