See comments below.
On 2016-08-03 17:50, Tracy Harms wrote:
On Aug 3, 2016 11:05 AM, "Erling Hellenäs" <[email protected]> wrote:
…
I describe the fork in a different way in my article than how it is
normally described. I describe one of the differences between explicit and
tacit J as taking away the default composition operation between two verbs.
Any opinions about this description?
Yes. There is no default composition between verbs in expressions such as
verb2 verb1 noun
Tacit phrases don't involve removing an implicit relationship between the
two verbs in such expressions. There is no relationship between verbs,
there. Instead, there are two instances of relationship between a verb and
a noun.
Where there is default (i.e. positionally determined) composition among
verbs is when verbs form verb trains.
Do you agree that the result of "verb1 noun" is input to verb2 and this
means that the result of the expression is the same as if there was
composition?
Do you believe me when I say that in JWithATwist there is really
composition in an equivalent expression?
I don't understand the "composition" you describe in the verb train. You
get composition if you add a composition operator in the middle of the
fork, as far as I understand. If you put an add operator there you add
the functions, if you put the times operator there you multiply them.
And you have to put something in the middle of the fork.
I know this is not the normal way to describe this, but it is how I can
make the hook-and-fork syntax rational in my mind. I think it is also
the easiest way to describe the hook-and-fork syntax.
--
Tracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
