If the main advantage is the removal of one space at the cost of adding
a ':', I doubt whether your proposal will gain enough user support to
make it worth considering. But that's for users to decide.
Henry Rich
On 3/3/2020 12:05 AM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
Forgot for a moment the main reason for {::: proposal.
Parsing rules allow for 1{::: as 2 separate tokens
They dont allow for 1Y. or (1i. for that matter)
On Monday, March 2, 2020, 06:15:08 p.m. EST, Raul Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
X. and Y. require shift keys on my keyboard.
Meanwhile, as a general rule, if things have gotten to be complicated
enough that you need boxed arguments for a dyad, it's pushing things
to refer to the contents of those boxes numerically.
I mean, certainly, I've done that -- but I prefer other approaches.
(I should probably take my comments here to chat@ -- I'll do that next
time, I guess?)
Thanks,
--
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
