If I. would take !.0 and not give a domain error then you could use I.!.0 with the small fudge factor and not have to worry about it becoming tolerant in the future.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote: > RM=Raul Miller, DB=me: > RM> I. becoming tolerant would be a breaking change > RM> in the language ... So I do not consider potential > RM> language change to be a valid design issue. > > I have less confidence in this inference than you do, especially in the > context of tolerance (or other implementation, as opposed to > notation, changes) [1]. > > DB> Nested trains can definitely be leveraged to re-use calculations. > > RM> I usually prefer to avoid such approaches > > To each his own, of course. And my threshold for "going explicit" is > higher than most. > > -Dan > > [1] Though the fact that I.'s intolerance is called out in its very > definition is a good sign (OTOH, it could also just be a > warning; I suspect if Roger could've easily made I. tolerant, he would > have, and I.'s intolerance stems from fundamental > difficulties in providing tolerance, or reliance on other intolerance > functions). > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
