Re: [stack] function/object ambiguity + quotation alternative

On Mar 3, 2009, at 2:57 PM, Stevan Apter wrote:

> this situation simply does not arise in k, or rather, it arises much
> less frequently.  this is because certain mathematical relations
> exist between different aggregate types, and the primitives are
> designed to exploit those relations.  (e.g. the transpose of a
> dictionary of lists is a table, that is, a list of similar atomic
> dictionaries.)  so x+y works predictably (and usefully!) on all
> (conformable) aggregates.

Is Q similar to K in this regard? Where would you suggest one look to  
get a deeper understanding of what you're talking about? I've gone  
through Q for Mortals but I don't feel like I've gotten the full  
picture.

Also, how important to do think it is that primitives in K work on  
aggregates rather than scalars? For example, would it somehow not work  
as well if it were required to indicate that you intended to apply a  
function to each element (using some concise syntax) instead of having  
it happen "automatically"? I ask because something like this would be  
necessary for typing the sort of things you do in K, and  
unfortunately, I'm not interested if I can't type it. Boring, I know.

- John