I can't begin to possibly understand what would make those D-functions a more elegant implementation. It involves a lot of hoops to use. I don't know APL, but its simple usage examples seemed a lot more explicit and verbose.
The ___ syntax proposal (or simply a version of the example OO adverb that works) has nothing specifically to do with nonad's or closures, but rather simply maintaining the "first-class" nature of functions inside numbered locales. A method that interacts with its instance variables does not work when passed to a modifier. Its a real and glaring deficiency. ----- Original Message ---- From: bill lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Programming forum <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 10:34:31 AM Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] passing object functions to other objects Pascal Jasmin wrote: > I didn't explicity say this, but to enable anonymous objects, it would be > good if either __ ( double) or ___ (triple) syntax allowed to parameterize > the locale after it. For example, if o below were to be assigned (< 10) by > conew. I understand that name__ is currently shorthand for name_base_ but > that is supposedly temporary. I'll use ___ (triple _) as the proposed syntax. IMO implementing closure using current capacity of J is not too attractive. OTOH D-function of dyalog make closure more elegant. http://www.dyalog.dk/conf2006.htm see article by John Scholes -- regards, bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
