From 65eef4fade5eb426dae01d480f383b8a30b23071 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Marshall Lochbaum <mwlochbaum@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 14:06:02 -0400
Subject: Change "BQN / main" in header to "(github) / BQN"

---
 docs/commentary/primitive.html | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

(limited to 'docs/commentary/primitive.html')

diff --git a/docs/commentary/primitive.html b/docs/commentary/primitive.html
index ad6d4665..fbbd4d5d 100644
--- a/docs/commentary/primitive.html
+++ b/docs/commentary/primitive.html
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
   <link href="../style.css" rel="stylesheet"/>
   <title>BQN: What is a primitive?</title>
 </head>
-<div class="nav"><a href="https://github.com/mlochbaum/BQN">BQN</a> / <a href="../index.html">main</a> / <a href="index.html">commentary</a></div>
+<div class="nav">(<a href="https://github.com/mlochbaum/BQN">github</a>) / <a href="../index.html">BQN</a> / <a href="index.html">commentary</a></div>
 <h1 id="what-is-a-primitive">What is a primitive?</h1>
 <p>People sometimes wonder how the set of primitives in BQN was chosen. Outsiders to array programming might assume that the &quot;big idea&quot; of APL is just to take the most common tasks and write them with symbols instead of names—even Dijkstra said something like this, calling APL a &quot;bag of tricks&quot;! I don't think this is quite right, so I'd like to explain my personal view on why it makes sense to call a few special operations &quot;primitives&quot; and give them dedicated symbols. While I think this overlaps some with the ideas of other array designers, I am speaking only for myself here.</p>
 <h2 id="names-versus-symbols">Names versus symbols</h2>
-- 
cgit v1.2.3