Don Guinn asked: > So is there or is there not a problem with f and h running in either order > or in parallel?
The Dictionary provides for this possibility. That is, it purposefully avoids promising in what order f and h will run. The interpreter, at the moment, runs h then f . But, given the above, future interpreters don't need to, and may not. Don't depend on order of execution. Unless you're a pragmatist ;) -Dan PS: I wonder if we should start the practice of distinguishing theory from practice. The language J, as a Platonic ideal, is specified in the Dictionary. The interpreter j, as a practical matter, is specified in C. These two specifications do not always coincide. Perl's community has adopted the convention of naming the language "Perl" (capital P) and the interpreter "perl" (lowercase p). Perhaps, analogously, we should refer to the Dictionary specification as "J", and the interpreter as "j"? As in "j executes J". In this case, we could say "J can execute the verbs in any order, but j always executes them in sequence, h first." -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Aiming-at-a-multi-core-future-tp14383671s24193p14398011.html Sent from the J Programming mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
