Yes, we need to be aware that local names disappear when the load verb ends, but they still exist before the load verb ends. So, you can take advantage of this by building things using local names to eventually result in a really neat tacit definition from lots of simple pieces which are local names. Don't forget to throw in the f. at the end. But these names can accidentally hang around in standalone scripts because the application runs under the initial load, that is, the initial load has not ended when the application is off and running.
And if you have a need to keep the local names around for a while, use 0!:0 directly instead of load so the local names will still be available for a while after running the script. On 8/7/07, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/7/07, Roger Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There have not been any changes in the interpreter > > in this regard. Perhaps the defn of "load" was changed > > and that could have changed the behaviour. Or perhaps > > you did your experiments using "load", thinking that > > it was equivalent to 0!:0@< . > > On reflection, I have realized that this latter is the case: > > I was thinking that the local context I saw when using > 'load' was a property of 0!:0 rather than being a consequence > of load having an explicit (rather than tacit) definition. > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
