not exactly what I had in mind so we don’t want no bloat, right
how about simply assigning numbers? magic numbers are about as readable as magic letters we already define sugar in english.ijs so some name could be added for associativity which might be 2⁰=2¹-1 (all four currently known annotations? <:2^4) but before details of exposition to the user, implementation details should be settled on. Not that I’d deal with that but I wouldn’t take this discussion too far as long as we don’t know which limitations come up when trying to actually make it work. So I’ll silence myself for the time being. One question should be answered early on, though: I first thought we only want a couple of annotations pretty much set in stone, understood by the JE. The latest answers seem to suggest opening the mechanism up to arbitrary (ab)use by the user. Mostly @Jan, @Pascal, @Elijah: did you mean to • provide a means of user definable annotating or • have the foreigns/primitives in question inform the JE of a known set of annotations only? Hauke Am 11.01.23 um 21:43 schrieb Jan-Pieter Jacobs:
ASSOC =: A: 'a' or ASSOC =: 'a' A: <1
-- ---------------------- mail written using NEO neo-layout.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
