[Jprogramming] Current time: behaviour

[Roger Hui]

The relevance is that only the foreign conjunction is covered by the 
statement in http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/xmain.htm , viz,

   and must be used with an argument even though (as in 6!:0 '')  
   it may have no significance.



----- Original Message -----
From: Randy MacDonald <ramacd at nbnet.nb.ca>
Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:05
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Current time: behaviour
To: Programming forum <programming at jsoftware.com>

> ...and I fail to see what quality of foreigns justifies the 
> domain restriction.
> 
> Of course:
> 
>    time =: monad : ' 6!:0 '''' '
> 
> makes most of this whole thread moot. I41m done.
> 
> Roger Hui wrote:
> > 2: is not a instance of the foreign conjunction.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Randy MacDonald <ramacd at nbnet.nb.ca>
> > Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 8:21
> > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Current time: behaviour
> > To: Programming forum <programming at jsoftware.com>
> >
> >   
> >> Yet
> >>
> >>    2: (0 0$0)
> >>
> >> does not give a domain error.  There is a fine line 
> between 
> >> consistency 
> >> and dogma.
> >>
> >> Roger Hui wrote:
> >>     
> >>> It is not any feeling that relaxing the rule in this 
> specific 
> >>>       
> >> case 
> >>     
> >>> will be a cause of later regret as sticking to a general 
> principle.>>> As I recall, there was no change in this area, 
> just a more
> >>> consistent and systematic enforcement of the rule.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Dan Bron <j at bron.us>
> >>> Date: Monday, October 29, 2007 13:31
> >>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Current time: behaviour
> >>> To: Programming forum <programming at jsoftware.com>
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>>> Roger wrote:
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>>  a. I disagree that the functions in questions should 
> >>>>>           
> >> be 
> >>     
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> niladic.
> >>>> I agree.  Though there are other ways to interpret the 
> >>>> phrase "should-be-niladic" (which don't involve admitting 
> >>>>         
> >> zero-
> >>     
> >>>> argument verbs into the language).
> >>>>
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>>  it is better to be strict now than to be 
> >>>>>  sorry about being lax later.
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> Fair enough.  Can you sketch an example (or two) where 
> >>>> permitting an arbitrary argument to such a function would 
> >>>>         
> >> cause 
> >>     
> >>>> us to be sorry later?  And, out of historical 
> interest, 
> >>>> what prompted the change when it occured?