On 5/23/07, Roger Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A dyad x f y in J is defined so that x&f is a more
sensible function than f&y , unless there is
getting "more sensible" explicitly defined ...
a firmly entrenched argument order. In the cases
... and laying out what is/was "firmly entrenched" ...
seems to be the order of the day.
Since APL (and J) have at times _changed_ or _abandoned_ entrenched ideas
and since different ideas of "more sensible" apply
the skill and expertise level of the language designer is what makes or
fakes this out
in a given language.
J is spectacularly successful here.
And I also disagree with many of the choices: but that doe snot make either
choice
more or less sensible or entrenched: they are just different choices.
And since J allows you to "play" with differing choices:
wow, what a Gift.
of | and %, the judgment is that m&| ("modulo m")
is more useful than |&i , and there is little
chance of convincing people that % should be
"divided into" rather than % .
As a user community grows within a given language, it tends to become more
set in its
ways over time, as
compatibility
and
installed base
and
existing learning curve
come into play for the managers of the asset called the language.
over time, new springs flower and shoot off to explore
side channels, and, at times, develop into their own genus.
The existence of passive (~) takes the sting off
having the wrong order.
Agreed: J almost always has a 1-3 token solution to a problem at this
level.
----- Original Message -----
From: Terrence Brannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:05 am
Subject: [Jgeneral] Why does the Residue function take its arguments in
"reverse" order
> It seems that the Residue function should follow the same argument
> order as %
>
> It does not seem consistent or intuitive for the arguments to be
> reversed.
> What motivated this decision? I spent 5 minutes about to tear my
> hair out trying
> to figure out the results I was getting from Residue.
>
> 7 % 2
> 3.5
> 2 | 7 NB. would be 7 | 2 if I were designing J :)
> 1
>
>
> I'm sorry to ask what seem like such nitpicky little questions,
> but I got a
> great answer regarding Passive, so perhaps I am just ignorant of
> some loftier
> motivation for such argument calling conventions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
--
Roy A. Crabtree
UNC '76 gaa.lifer#
(For TN contact, email me to set up a confirmed date/time)
[When you hear/read/see/feel what a yehudi plays/writes/sculpts/holds]
[(n)either violinist {Menuhin} (n)or writer {"The Yehudi Principle"} (n)or
molder (n)or older]
[you must strive/think/look/sense all of it, or you will miss the meanings
of it all]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Forwards only to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: auto to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Be short < 160 chars cuts off; currently
offline
[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: auto to ^
http://www.authorsden.com/royacrabtree
http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/activex/720/resume/full.doc
--
(c) RAC/IP, ARE,PRO,PAST
(Copyright) Roy Andrew Crabtree/In Perpetuity
All Rights/Reserved Explicitly
Public Reuse Only
Profits Always Safe Traded
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
