On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Ian Clark <earthspo...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> definition. Furthermore (and I'm getting controversial now...) *all* > examples will benefit from being couched like this: > value=. 300 > x=. 3 > y=. i. 6 > value x}y > Yes, that would be somewhat controversial. First, to be consistent the final expression should look like this: x m}y Second, as I am sure you anticipated, I am not sure that that kind of consistency is a good thing. People learn from drawing connections and they learn at their own speed when they find things which interest them. If we present things too narrowly (with a focus on mechanical rules rather at the expense of presenting the information they need), then I think our priorities would be out of order. Mind you, style guides can be a good thing, and some of your other suggestions (which focussed on getting quality content before spending too much effort on presenting that content) were good. And I see some advantages in presenting information in a fashion which hints at how to read the dictionary. However, code of the form x=: thing is bad code, and I think we are spending so much time focusing on style issues because writing good content is difficult. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
