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

Reply via email to