On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:40 PM, David Vaughan
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I was going to try and find a way to use &. in that after I'd got it working,
> as I realised it would probably be possible to use it. So what you're saying
> is that:
Do you mean like this?
F &. (tolower :. toupper)
> tie0`tie1 @. f@:g y
>
> actually performs the agenda part on g y? Or have I got that wrong?
you have that right. The above is equivalent to:
((((tie0)(`)(tie1))(@.)(f))(@:)(g))(y)
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
