> But you can have naturally occurring arrays which would > be recognized as sets when that was not the intention.
I was going to say, "that would be true no matter what format we picked, right?" But now I consider: suppose the empty value (what Kip called E) were something truly exotic, like (<(15#0)$0) ? That would make it very unlikely to mistake a set for a non-set. And the empty set would have a really distinctive look. Henry Rich On 10/10/2010 9:04 PM, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Kip Murray<[email protected]> wrote: >> In my model the verb isset tells which arrays are allowed to be sets. > > But you can have naturally occurring arrays which would > be recognized as sets when that was not the intention. > > Examples include: > > '123' -.L:0;:":i.10 > i.&.>#:2 > > And, this does not solve the related problem of using > the wrong set. > > Personally, I think correctness is best dealt with using > testing. If the result is not correct, the code is wrong. > If the code is wrong and the result is correct you need > additional tests. (But good modularity demands that the > tests be factored out of the production code.) > > (Though, granted, you can find advocates opposed to > modular design.) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
