> Good Lord, this isn't a 'bug' to be cast aside, it's a
> description of function, and one that I have counted on for
> years.
Thanks to RE Boss' generous donations, I have quite a collection of old J
versions. I just browsed through them, and, as far as I
can tell, this description was added in 4.06a and removed in the next version.
Well, to be more precise, it is present in 4.06a, but neither in 4.05d nor
4.06d. If there were any intermediate versions (say,
4.06c), I don't have them, so I can't say they didn't make the assertion.
(BTW, if anyone _does_ have these versions, please let
me know. It helps me answer questions just like this.)
This doesn't quite jibe with what I remember Roger saying during the JUG; I
thought I understood he'd inserted the equivalence
after Ken's passing, and later recanted, realizing that Ken had deliberately
omitted it for just this reason.
Or maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. The only Dic page I checked was II.F .
In any case, I don't think I was ever under the impression that the DoJ made
this promise (but I started my career with v4.06d).
In fact, I think I've defensively coded against it. Or at least given warning:
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2007-February/005000.html
-Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
