Er... what do you mean by "you can't set it from variables"? I can do this:
amend= } Now I can do: x m amend y Same exact syntax, the only thing that has changed is the name. (Which gets us back into the discussion about what does "concise syntax" actually mean and is that related to the names involved or not?) I can also do this: AMEND=:3 :0 'x m y'=. y x m} y ) Now, I can do this: AMEND x;m;y and that's a different syntax. Anyways, I can't figure out what you are telling me, and that feels frustrating. But mostly, I guess it sounds like you have borrowed some parts of J's vocabulary and are using it with a different syntax. And, I guess that that can be a good exercise for you. But maybe I should stop thinking about the things you are saying as having to do with J itself and instead I should take them to be about your project (which happens to have J as the first letter of its name)? Thanks, -- Raul On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Erling Hellenäs <[email protected]> wrote: > The Amend operator has the signature x m} y . m is set in the interpreter. > You can't set it from variables without using another syntax which I mean is > twisted. If you instead box x and m you get (x;m) } y which is less terse? I > am imagining a lot of changes like this, not just changes of Amend. Amend is > just an example to show what I mean. We would get a modified J syntax. What > I want to say is that IF the modified J syntax is slightly less terse it > does not matter. > > Dyadic rank x u"n y could instead be n u" x;y as another similar example. > > These are just examples to describe my text which concerns JWithATwist, but > which is obviously also my personal opinions about J, it is not proposals > for change in J. > > I use JWithATwist for experiments with changes like this. JWithATwist is > open source, free to use also for others. You can download and run or clone > it and use for anything you like. > > To clone(You probably need Visual Studio): > https://github.com/andrimne/JWithATwist > > To download(You probably need Windows): > https://github.com/andrimne/JWithATwist/releases > > All opinions are welcome. > > /Erling > > > On 2016-08-11 18:31, Raul Miller wrote: >> >> Here's an example of three arguments in an unboxed argument list: >> - 2 3 4 >> >> The thing that boxing gets you is the ability to have different kinds >> of argument mixed together. >> >> -each 2;(i.3);i.4 5 >> >> You can also do things that don't really make sense, like this: >> -each 'a';'bcd';'fg' >> >> if you want to generate errors, for example. >> >> But I guess what we are really saying is that we can use good examples >> of the things we are talking about. >> >> And that goes for other things, like the whole "syntax / name" >> dichotomy. You talked about terse syntax and I immediately thought of >> the symbols (or names) that get used with the syntax. >> >> 1 + 2 >> 3 op 4 >> >> From your comments, you were thinking about something else, but since >> you included no examples I obviously did not understand what you were >> thinking. >> >> I hope this helps, >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
