Randy wrote:
> The statement is _not_ true of ...h&]... point taken. I'm
> still thrown by the late entry of the @:, which I sometimes
> still think of as @ . A senior J'er moment, if you will.
In this case you could use @ in place of @: (for RHA verbs with unbound
rank, they're fungible). Synopsis:
These will work:
6!:2 , 7!:2@:]
6!:2 , 7!:2@ ]
These will not:
6!:2 , 7!:2&:]
6!:2 , 7!:2& ]
-Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
