i.~ , is not equivalent. The original expression was (,x) i. y . Even if it were equivalent I myself would not write it that way. I find trains of the form [EMAIL PROTECTED] g [EMAIL PROTECTED] quite pleasing; I look upon hooks of the form f~ g with some distaste. (There's no accounting for taste, eh?)
The only tacit operators are sequences of adverbs or bonded conjunctions. I myself would not make the attempt for an adverb as straightforward as 1 : '] ,: u' . ----- Original Message ----- From: neville holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, July 14, 2006 6:05 pm Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Explicit-to-tacit query > Regarding the tacit definition > > ,@[ i. ] > > wouldn't it be simpler to define it commuted as > > i.~ , > > and use that function instead ? > > And is there a tacit way to encode > > 1 : '] ,: u.' NB. Jv5 > > since 13 : doesn't help ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
