> From: Tracy Harms > > I phrased the tacit definition with an awareness that most of my > readers do not know J, and with the hope of keeping as much emphasis > as possible on the summation and reflexive exponentiation that > dominate this interesting pattern. > > JMQ introduced me to the use of lower-case o as synonym for @: and I'm > liking it a good deal. Like you, Ric, I still find @: easier to parse, > but the aesthetics of the 'o' seem worth the layer of indirection for > many occasions.
Yes I get that the idea was to try and make the solution look less like a random sequence of punctuation for non-Jers. Like any type of communication, it is important to know your audience and your message, and adapt your style of communication to suit. The questioner was asking whether the J sentence was readily comprehensible and clear to someone who knew J. It seems to me that this is another case where the answer is: "Absolutely! In the same way as someone who knows Arabic/Chinese/Maths symbols/[insert symbol set here] finds it easy to read a sentence using that script." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
