My concerns with that production would be: (1) It removes a syntax error which would help catch some silly mistakes, and
(2) Retrospective comments like http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2006-January/026271.html and http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2007-December/031333.html Thanks, -- Raul On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 2:33 PM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > The argument for (C0 C1) -> conj (u C0 v) (u C1 v) looks pretty strong > to me, especially as it allows modifier trains to use special code in > hooks. And, it's backward compatible. I will implement that unless > someone can see a reason not to. > > I see no equally-good way to create a verb fork with 3 input verbs. It > is possible to create conjunctions that consume operands and return a > modifier, thus allowing more than 2 operands in the final result; but > the resulting code doesn't look like J at all. We will need a lot more > thought and consensus before we go down that path. > > 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
