Hello Tracy; I cannot agree that #. and #: are simpler than ": and ". but I suspect that's just me.
... ra On 12/20/2010 6:15 PM, Tracy Harms wrote: > Randy wrote: > > "As far as the 'why convert to and from strings?' question goes, the > 'first digit of a number' concept _requires_ seeing numbers as strings." > > That does not fit my understanding. It requires seeing numbers by way of > numerals, and it requires seeing those numerals as comprised of digits, but > it seems to me that "string" is a different sort of abstraction. > > A "string" seems to me to suggest concerns that have to do with considering > the characters without including any numeric qualities. The two concepts are > similar, but I think I see enough difference to be happier with treating > them as digits (naturally manipulated with #. and #:) > > -- > Tracy > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
