p j wrote: > Earlier I had asked if > u c y -: (u c y) > I guess we found an example where that fails.
If u c y does not appear in isolation, all bets are off. Then again, perhaps I should have objected because -: is a J syntactic word and u c y -: (u c y) is not a valid use of J syntax. > Is there a sentence with a partial sentence u c y, > where the following would not be the case? > u c y -: (u) (c y) I'm going to have to ask you what you really mean by that. On the face of it, the proposition is invalid. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
