Re: [Bug-apl] update for the help.def

[Juergen Sauermann]

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 On 27 Apr 2017, at 13:44, Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: 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 On 04/26/2017 04:29 PM, enz...@gmx.com wrote: http://www.theonion.com/americanvoices/oxford-comma-wins-court-case-workers-55578 On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 16:25:52 +0200 Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> 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, enz...@gmx.com 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 <alexey.veretenni...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Sure here it is. Don't expect anything big in it - it is just a couple of lines of text.