I wasn't positive that there would be a written misstatement, more an insufficiency of written statement.
To start, here are a few informative references, where it is prominent and well-explained. Eric Iverson, J Primer, When they aren't http://www.jsoftware.com/help/primer/when_not_same.htm (script locals are in scope of "load") Roger Stokes, Learning J, 26.5 Local Definitions in Scripts http://www.jsoftware.com/help/learning/26.htm#04 (detailed account of script locals with 3 : ' ') Henry Rich, J For C Programmers, 29. Modular Code, Assignment http://www.jsoftware.com/help/jforc/modular_code.htm#_Toc141158126 (a small note about load in context of so-called "private" assignments.) But I was not able to find anything in normative references: Dictionary or User Manual, etc. Could be mentioned or referenced in H. Frets and Scripts http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dicth.htm or in Scripts Foreign Conjunction (where it also does not say about boxed and unboxed argument differences) http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dx000.htm Here are a few places from the forum using random search, that hint at some confusion or vagueness. [Jprogramming] Standalone Error wdhandler_base_ http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2007-August/007715.html http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2007-August/007720.html [Jprogramming] local and global assignment in different locales http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2007-August/007712.html [Jprogramming] Standalone Error wdhandler_base http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2007-August/007702.html [Jgeneral] unexpected result http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2007-March/029247.html [Jprogramming] Fix local names http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2007-January/004649.html (emphasis on "script", not explicit scope) [Jprogramming] Something almost cool - maybe a bug http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2006-March/001573.html [Jbeta] Global Assignment Error outside an Explicit Definition http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/beta/2006-February/000505.html http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/beta/2006-February/000503.html [Jforum] Scripts Won't Run http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2005-April/021472.html (explained in terms of "script" not explicit scope) [Jforum] Running a Script http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2005-March/021224.html (not knowing about explicit origin script scope) Jforum: =. vs =: in scripts http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2002-May/009466.html http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2002-May/009849.html (older "loads" were tacit leaving script local in global scope) --- Roger Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you have any evidence that this misconception > (a script having its own locals) is universal? > > Perhaps the extent of the misconception is due > to the fact that the J IDE itself uses "load" > and other explicitly defined tools like "script" > (e.g. to implement "Run|Window"), and 0!:n > are seldom used on their own. > > I do not think that the documentation that I am > responsible for (dictionary, release notes) would > say that a script has its own locals. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Oleg Kobchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2007 16:10 > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Standalone Error wdhandler_base_ > To: Programming forum <[email protected]> > > > --- 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. > > > > And this realization is what I referred to as unveiling the > > misconception about the 0!:0 context. > > > > It might have been rooted in some written documentation, > > because this misconception is universal. We need to look at > > various places where 0!:0 and scripts are mentioned. > > Or probably, the truth is not straight and clear enough. > > The reality turns out to be much simpler. > > > > > > This mechanism of local script variables visible to > > the scope of the loading function may have some interesting > > applications, such as custom loaders which can be > > parameterized with temporary local variables defined > > in the script(s). > > > > Or it could be thought of functions mutating their bodies > > at run time with code from nouns or even script files. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
