Kip wrote: > f @: g and [: f g give the same results. I usually express this as [: f g and f@:(g) give the same results, to avoid any ambiguity where g itself is a verb train, contains adverbs, etc.
I wish there were a concise, precise way to express Henry's cavaet that all "equivalent substitutions" apply under the assumption that both the original phrase and its replacement are considered in isolation (e.g., wrapped in parens). -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
