> The J authors did think that it was. It's called ">:". So did CL. I still disagree though: >:/ is different than (1+])/. 1++:i. is the same number of charact

> The J authors did think that it was. It's called ">:". So did CL. I still disagree though: >:/ is different than (1+])/. 1++:i. is the same number of characters as >:+:i. I feel like there are many more valuable functions more deserving than this one. > I am still unclear what your claim is: that such functions are always an example of "too much abstraction"? If so, I don't think that claim is tenable. Sorry it's so difficult to figure out; You're not asking really constructive questions, so maybe one of my other replies will help. I'm not saying anything is always one way or another because I think the only absolute is that it always depends!