Read your backtick and it looks good. Easy reading. But I still like the original in the dictionary better. Gets to the point yet still covers everything. One thing you did has bothered me for a long time and I never have figured out a good way to fix it and still look good. In the definition part you have a sentence ending with "as with ,.". The problem is that the comma is immediately followed by a period. So instead of ending the sentence is changes the "append" to "stitch". Never did like inserting a space to avoid that, as that doesn't look right either.
While looking at the original dictionary I noticed a couple of things that the dictionary said that were different from what you had. So I tried them. g=.add`* (g/1 2 3 4 5) 47 g +---+-+ |add|*| +---+-+ 5!:1<'add' +-+ |+| +-+ *`9 |domain error | *`9 The dictionary says that the name "add" would be converted to "+" (5!:1). Didn't happen. Also shows that "u`n" is valid. Well, the example "*`9" does give an error as you said. Am I misreading the dictionary? On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote: > Ric wrote: > > My advice to all interested is: Don't be afraid to get it wrong, put > something up! > > Ok, I decided to pick a "weirder" primitive, tie (`). I was inspired by a > discussion with Tracy a couple days back. What I > realized is we almost never see ` out of context. That is, its results are > always anonymous, and always immediately fed to another > primitive, with wonderful and mysterious results. > > Because of this, ` gives the impression of being wonderful and mysterious, > when in fact it is a humble little conjunction (it's > really just , in disguise). So I thought it would be a fun candidate for > re-documentation: > > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Vocabulary/backtick > > Now, I embrace the Wiki spirit. Please, edit away. This includes both > content and formatting (I am not married to any format; but > I do like the idea of giving "mnemonics" for the spellings of primitives, > to make them easier to recall and rationalize). > > But one thing I would like to ask is that we present a definition both > accessible *and* comprehensive. That is our only option, if > we really want to create a primary reference (so one doesn't have to don't > have to "fall back" onto the official DoJ if he doesn't > want to). > > -Dan > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
