In this case, there is no well-defined fixed point,
no way of talking about “the” fixed point.
Any nonboxed value is a fixed point.

What about “taking the derivative of ": ?”
All strings are fixed points.

The question raised here is “what is > meant to be?”
Sure you can define it so that it wants to do what
it actually does. But I always thought of it as
unboxing, with the quirk that it doesn’t reject
unboxed values but works like no-op ] instead.
As a convenience.

As always, YMMV

Am 16.01.21 um 20:35 schrieb Justin Paston-Cooper:
> The fixed point of a function is a well-defined concept.
> 
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 22:21, Hauke Rehr <hauke.r...@uni-jena.de> wrote:
>>
>> There’s no sane way of talking about a “derivative of >”
>>
>> You said it shouldn’t concern itself with functions
>> meant for dealing with boxed arguments, which > is an
>> example of. If you’re not willing to state your numeric
>> function in terms of functions dealing with numeric
>> arguments only, you should be blamed.
>>
>> There is ].
>> This is not by design meant for boxed-only arguments.
>>
>>> 3 works only as a convenience. Semantically, it’s crap.
>> I think it should be undefined behaviour officially.
>> Open to be changed to produce an error without notice.
>>
>> Don’t misunderstand me: I like using &.> and the like.
>> But I think it’s working against intended semantics
>> and always consider using > on unboxed arguments a hack.
>>
>> Am 16.01.21 um 20:12 schrieb Raul Miller:
>>>    >3
>>> 3
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------
>> mail written using NEO
>> neo-layout.org
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> 

-- 
----------------------
mail written using NEO
neo-layout.org

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to