I was referring to the "easiest fix" solution where some current legitimate
sentences (according to the dictionary) such as
]`]}]`] and f^:] 0&]`]
but also, for instance,
([`([`1:@.(0 >: ([ echo f.)@:]))`(1 -~ ]))&('no stack error'"_^:[) 7
would have been, somehow, ruled out.
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > For what is worth, clearly, I do not like this proposal: it would require
> > changes to the dictionary; these changes would add complexity to the
> > definitions; the definitions would be less consistent since they would
> > introduce exceptions. Although the change would prevent certain crashes,
> > which are unlikely to occur by chance, it would do so by forcing a
> > limitation which might even brake some existent code.
>
> What changes would be required in the dictionary?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
