The relevance is that only the foreign conjunction is covered by the statement in http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/xmain.htm , viz,
and must be used with an argument even though (as in 6!:0 '') it may have no significance. ----- Original Message ----- From: Randy MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:05 Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Current time: behaviour To: Programming forum <[email protected]> > ...and I fail to see what quality of foreigns justifies the > domain restriction. > > Of course: > > time =: monad : ' 6!:0 '''' ' > > makes most of this whole thread moot. I41m done. > > Roger Hui wrote: > > 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
