Thanks for your message. I know it has taken me a few days to respond, but I have not been ignoring you. In fact I've spent several hours trying to understand the issues with adverbs and conjunctions. It was only after a careful re-reading, that I finally realized what you were telling me.
foobar=. 1 : 0 x -10 ) 4 foobar _6 I don't believe I would ever have thought to try that without your message. Now that I have, I believe the issue grows from Ken's initial Direct Definition models. They only had two arguments: ⍺ and ⍵ The first J implementations I saw looked a lot like direct definition. As manager of the SAX project, it was my job to decide which features we could include. As a consequence, I had some lengthy arguments with Ken over his current thinking about how to provide features I now see in J. Interesting as those stories are to me, they don't belong in this forum. Paul (formerly: [email protected]) On Fri, Aug 7, 2020, 9:10 AM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > Is it a bug? More a continuing penance for an initial faulty design. > > https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/com#Details note 11 describes > the situation. > > In early J, the names u/v/m/n had not been invented, and an explicit > modifier had only the names x and y to work with. x was what we now > call u, and y v. Obviously, such a modifier was very restricted: to > produce a modifier as we now know it, with access to u/v/x/y, the > modifier would have to create the text after substituting its x/y, and > have that reinterpreted by (3 : n) to create a verb. That definition > didn't last long, but while it was in force a few simple system > modifiers were written, for example > > bind > 2 : 'x@(y"_)' > > Nowadays we would write 'u@m' or 'u@(m"_)'. The language wasn't even > weaned and it had a compatibility problem! > > The 'solution', still in place today, was to inspect the text of the > modifier. If no reference to u/v/m/n is found, the modifier is assumed > to be old-style, and the names x and maybe y are defined as the modifier > arguments. With your example, an adverb has no y, so y is left > undefined and you get a value error. This error is detected when (1 > now) is executed. You want a new-style modifier that defers execution > until the (modifier+u/v) sees 'cat'. > > To get a new-style modifier, you have to have u/v/m/n in there > somewhere. Just as you discovered. > > Henry Rich > > > On 8/7/2020 11:28 AM, Paul Jackson wrote: > > This is not where I began. I had lots of use of the m argument, but all > of > > it in quotes. It took me a while to isolate the problem to something this > > simple. Now that I have, I have also found other errors are signaled with > > the dyadic case of an adverb, and both cases of a conjunction. As my > second > > example shows, I can avoid the problem with an unnecessary use of the > name. > > I can provide details if anyone has trouble replicating the rest of the > > issues. What I'm hoping for is a confirmation that this is a bug. > > > > Paul > > > > now=: 1 : 0 > > y > > ) > > 1 now'cat' > > |value error: now > > | y > > > > now=: 1 : 0 > > y [m=. m > > ) > > 1 now'cat' > > cat > > > > JVERSION > > Engine: j901/j64/android > > Release-f: commercial/2020-06-12T10:01:40 > > Library: 9.01.24 > > J Android: 1.4.09/9/28 > > Platform: Android 64 (arm64-v8a) > > Installer: unknown > > InstallPath: > /storage/emulated/0/Android/data/com.jsoftware.j.android/files > > Contact: www.jsoftware.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > -- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
