> you would be able to write
> f + g + h + v F:F:F:
This is neat. Another option is an infix, rather than postfix, modifier:
f + F: g + F: h + F: v
The advantages are that you don't have to count the number of forks before
you know how many F: to apply; you merely add them as you go, "naturally".
And that it would be simpler to describe in the Dictionary. This is a bit
of a mouthful:
> fork is implemented as an adverb which produces
> an adverb which produces an adverb which produces
> an ambivalent verb
(though of course we could avoid all that by simply asserting f g h F: y
<==> (f y) g (h y) , modolu execution order)
The disadvantage is that the notation interrupts the code's flow. That is,
your postfix notation still "looks like" a train. My infix doesn't, quite.
Anyway, here's a model:
F =: 1 : ' 2 : ( ''(u y)'',U,''(v y)'',LF,'':'',LF,''(x u y)'',''(x v
y)'',~U=.5!:5{.;:''u'')'
Obviously, the problem you pointed out with 5!:5 still applies, and you
could substitute your serialV .
-Dan
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Regrets-tp14459630s24193p14464642.html
Sent from the J General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
