On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Dan Bron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I don't buy is this philosophy that it's better to have no inverse than > an imperfect inverse. We've had this discussion numerous times. No one > complains about (e.g.) ;:^:_1 even though ;: is not 1-to-1. > > If we restrict the range of p.^:_1 it may not systematic useful, but an > error > is systematically useless. Further, the cost is not so great: the change > (like all new inverses) is completely backwards compatible.
However, once you have committed to a non-error case you can run into issues if you later on decide that some conflicting non-error case would have been better. Between potential uses and maintenance and potential upgrades, this wind up being a "benefits/costs" issue. In other words, it's up to the whims of the implementors. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
