Roger Hui wrote:
Hey Roger, what is the rationale for restricting the domain of
should-be-niladic functions?
a. I disagree that the functions in questions should be niladic.
Niladic functions are a bad idea (e.g. how do you interpret
f=: niladic ; is niladic in the domain of adverbs and conjunctions; etc.)
The arguments against actual niladics have made sense for a long time
and for the most part make sense; the sacrifice of niladics does allow
for many other things. It's just that "independent of argument" misses
something imo.
b. For verbs whose arguments have no significance but must
be supplied, that argument is required to be an empty vector
because it is better to be strict now than to be sorry about
being lax later.
I'm not convinced. The cases where one would be sorry are covered by
the Open-Closed principle, and restricting the domain removes the
independence of the verb on the argument.
:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|\/| Randy A MacDonald | APL: If you can say it, it's done.. (ram)
|/\| ramacd <at> nbnet.nb.ca |
|\ | | The only real problem with APL is that
BSc(Math) UNBF'83 | it is "still ahead of its time."
Sapere Aude | - Morten Kromberg
Natural Born APL'er |
-----------------------------------------------------(INTP)----{ gnat }-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
