Newsgroups:   comp.lang.apl
Path: watmath!watserv1!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uunet.ca!geac!itcyyz!yrloc!intern
From:         dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.COM (Gillett, David)
Subject:      Re: Function evaluation in J
Message-ID: <1992May4.002247.5434@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM>
Sender: intern@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (Intern via QUADRAM)
Reply-To:     dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.COM (Gillett, David)
Organization: Reuters Information Services (Canada)
Date:          4 May 92 00:00:16 UT


-----------Message forwarded from IPSA Mailbox-------------


no. 6204007 filed 23.23.25  sun  3 may 1992
from dgil
to   uclapl
subj Re: Function evaluation in J
ref  6203183

     I must admit that I had some confusion over this point as well.  But I
looked at "exp1  is  exp2" and said to myself:  If 'is' meant 'is entirely
equivalent to', why on Earth would Ken and Roger have bothered to include
this in the language?  i.e. I knew there must be more to it, because that
interpretation of 'is' was absurd.
                                      Dave Gillett


-----------------------------------------------------------
This posting is forwarded from an internal Reuters mailbox.
No statement or opinion contained herein should be taken as
being Reuters policy, or even as being approved by Reuters,
in any way.
