Except, error cases aren't an explicit part of any other definitions that I can find or remember.
So, what I am wondering is: how the definition would have to change if recursion were limited in some fashion to prevent the interpreter from crashing. (You did say that the definition would have to change - I am wondering how it would look if it were changed.) -- Raul On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
