2: is not a instance of the foreign conjunction.
----- Original Message ----- From: Randy MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 8:21 Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Current time: behaviour To: Programming forum <[email protected]> > Yet > > 2: (0 0$0) > > does not give a domain error. There is a fine line between > consistency > and dogma. > > Roger Hui wrote: > > It is not any feeling that relaxing the rule in this specific > case > > will be a cause of later regret as sticking to a general principle. > > As I recall, there was no change in this area, just a more > > consistent and systematic enforcement of the rule. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Dan Bron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Monday, October 29, 2007 13:31 > > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Current time: behaviour > > To: Programming forum <[email protected]> > > > > > >> Roger wrote: > >> > >>> a. I disagree that the functions in questions should > be > >>> > >> niladic. > >> I agree. Though there are other ways to interpret the > >> phrase "should-be-niladic" (which don't involve admitting > zero- > >> argument verbs into the language). > >> > >> > >>> it is better to be strict now than to be > >>> sorry about being lax later. > >>> > >> Fair enough. Can you sketch an example (or two) where > >> permitting an arbitrary argument to such a function would > cause > >> us to be sorry later? And, out of historical interest, > >> what prompted the change when it occured? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
