'noun verb verb' is a fork and is interpreted as 'noun"_ verb verb' (noun"_ is a constant verb whose result is noun). http://keiapl.org/anec/#nvv
'verb verb noun' can not be made into a fork because 'verb noun' already has an interpretation (*viz*., apply verb to noun). On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Michal D. <michal.dobrog...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Change from a Noun to a verb, view its tacit version and apply it to > data: > > > > dd=: 13 :'(y%2) > (?]) x$y' > > > > dd > > (2 %~ ]) > [: (? ]) $ > > > > That is quite cool. I'm surprised that you can automatically get the tacit > definition. Does this work for any explicitly defined verb? > > I'm also surprised at the way %~ came out. Do left hand arguments not > require a & to bind the argument? It is strange to me that (1) works but > (2) does not. It seems to me that (3) is the logical way to phrase either > of them (ie. a fork with a constant right / left side). To reiterate, why > does (1) work? > > (1) (2 %~ ]) > [: (? ]) $ > (2) (] % 2) > [: (? ]) $ > (3a) (2: %~ ]) > [: (? ]) $ > (3b) (] %~ 2:) > [: (? ]) $ > (4a) (%&2 ]) > [: (? ]) $ NB. incorrect (hook caught me out again)! > (4b) ([: %&2 ]) > [: (? ]) $ NB. correct > > Cheers, > > Mike > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
