On 3/18/08, Mark D. Niemiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wouldn't this make testing difficult?
>
> For test suites, one can still always hand-craft a NaN:
> [ nan =: 3!:2 a.{~225 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 248 255
> _.
>
> However, it's much harder to create one inadvertently if one can't spell it.
> It's much easier to weed out old code if a spelling error (or similar)
> is signalled (much like how x. y. u. v. m. n. were changed in 6.01)
This motivation seems contrary to the design of J.
For example, I can already type 2+3. when I meant to type 2+.3
More generally, when working with mathematics, it has generally
been important that I check my work. And getting rid of _.
would not change that.
I have seen many languages introduce mechanisms which make
lesser used forms take more typing than other expressions, but
in the general case longer more round-about code does not
equate to correct code. It just means that you have to figure
out what has gone wrong in something rather verbose.
Put differently, this sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
