Dan Bron wrote: the DoJ is written in English, which can be ambiguous (as any language can [3]), so the reader's understanding can differ from the author's intent.
<<>> End quote Actually, this is an excellent argument for why the concise definitions in the J Dictionary and J Vocabulary document are sometimes difficult to understand, or may be misunderstood. Conciseness is a good thing, when all of the words and phrases in the definition language mean exactly same thing to everyone who reads them. The J programming language is a perfect example of a language that means the same thing to everyone that reads it. There is no ambiguity in a J program. There may be misunderstandings, but no ambiguity. However as Dan says, English is an ambiguous language. The more concise an English definition is, the more likely that an ambiguous word could be misunderstood. The fewer the words in the definition, the more likely that an alternate but valid understanding of a single word in the definition can cause misinterpretation of the whole definition. If definitions were written with more redundancy, such as by repeating the same definition in another way using different words, the chances of erroneous interpretation would be lessened. Conciseness is good in an unambiguous language, and not so good in an ambiguous one. It would probably help most newcomers to J to have a more redundant DoJ and Vocabulary I have always felt the Iverson's penchant for conciseness was a huge asset for language design, but a detriment for the documentation. Skip Cave ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
