Henry Rich wrote: > We are agreed, aren't we, that we like the code the way it is, but we > would like to see the Dictionary updated?
I responded: > I wouldn't mind either way. That is, I would be OK if the DoJ were amended to agree with the implementation, or if the implementation were altered to agree with the DoJ. I have been inconvenienced on several occasions by the current implementation, but only when using it in a way unlikely to be pursued by others, especially those like yourself who use J for real work. And even to me, the inconvenience is minor; a nuisance. I also lack the foresight to predict the effects of removing the nuisance. It just bothers me that there is a disagreement in such a fundamental place in the language. -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
