Hi Louis,
I am not at all a J programmer, but I remember that in old APL the
'and' was purely boolean (giving
a domain error as well if the arguments were not 0 or 1), but the
ISO standard for extended APL then
allowed non-boolean arguments as well (and the result is then the
least common multiple (aka. LCM)
of the arguments).
I suppose that J is still behaving like the old APL for dyadic
&. No idea, though what monadic & does in J, it seems
to have a meaning there? Or was it the !!! that cause the error?
One more reason to use APL.
/// Jürgen
On 04/27/2017 07:49 PM, Louis de
Forcrand wrote:
Jürgen,
At first I thought I had been doing it wrong all these years,
and that now I finally had seen the light, but in J:
1, 2, 3 & 4!!!
|domain
error
|
1,2, 3&4!!!
1, 2, 3, & 4!!!
1
, 2 , 3 ,&4 ! ! !
What are we going to do???
Louis
Hi,
the Oxford Comma is definitely broken because 'and' is
dyadic:
1, 2,
3, ∧ 4
VALENCE ERROR
1,2,3,∧4
^
1, 2, 3 ∧ 4
1 2 12
/// Jürgen
http://www.theonion.com/americanvoices/oxford-comma-wins-court-case-workers-55578
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 16:25:52 +0200
Juergen Sauermann <address@hidden> wrote:
Hi,
this sentence is the verbatim copy of the phrase proposed in https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
(chapter 17) and I do not feel like criticising the GNU project for their spelling.
/// Jürgen
On 04/22/2017 12:28 AM, address@hidden wrote:
Thanks you guys doing this )help is really appreciated - maybe I can make a contribution too
line 13 but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of ; -> , for oxford comma?
references :
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/what-is-the-oxford-comma-and-why-do-people-care-so-much-about-it/
http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Missing-Comma-Could-Cost-Maine-Company-Millions-416458593.html
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 23:01:01 +0200
Alexey Veretennikov <address@hidden> wrote:
Hi,
Sure here it is. Don't expect anything big in it - it is just a couple
of lines of text.
|