Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpl-opus!hpcc05!hpdmd48!rrr
From: rrr@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Rudi Rynders)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.apl
Subject: Re: Yet another message from Roger Hui
Message-ID: <15160014@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com>
Date: 17 Jan 91 21:51:30 GMT
References: <1991Jan14.210146.28858@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM>
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID
Lines: 22


 Well , this is very interesting ! The definition of "over" I quoted in
 my original query , I did NOT transcribe incorrectly ! It came straight
 from lesson 5 of "TANGIBLE MATH". The "over" mentioned in the previous
 response is different from this. To reiterate:

 As listed in my copy of "TANGIBLE MATH ": over=.;@({.;}.)&":@,
 whereas in the previous response        : over=.({.;@;}.)&":@,

 They both seem to be legal because they achieve the same result.

 My thanks to Sam Sirlin and Leigh Clayton and Roger Hui, for their
 responses.

 One further comment on the issue of whether the "Dictionary" is
 "obscure" or merely "terse". I'll settle for " a bit abstruse".
 It definitely requires some careful study .

 As for my suggestion of a text comparing APL and J: I still
 think it would be a good idea to have one to make the path to "J"
 a bit less thorny. The chances of "J" becoming popular will be a
 lot better with it than without it IMHO.