I've been reading about tacit vs. explicit definitions. For some users of J , it seems more natural to use x and y when using a right to left definition. For many others your style is more easily used. However, f and g do the same thing.
So, writing in either style is OK. However it there were a way to see style f translated into either style f* or f^ could be use or some other way of distinguishing them. You would be able to see "your f " in either style. It would be like having an English or French version of the same sentence. But in a similar fashion I could view "my g " in either g* or g^ There would never be a need to enter f or g alone since you would pick the one you wanted. Does this seem any clearer? Linda -----Original Message----- From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Raul Miller Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 12:09 AM To: Programming forum Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] J in 5 minutes Why would f alone provide no definition? I'm having trouble understanding what you are driving at? Thanks, -- Raul On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Linda Alvord <lindaalv...@verizon.net>wrote: > In my more perfect world, Raul could write f , and I could write g . > > f=: <./ + i.@(+ *)@-~ > > g=: 13 :'x(<./+[:([: i. (+*))-~) y' > > > However, by some coding system, he could look at both "dialects". > > f1=: <./ + i.@(+ *)@-~ > f2=: <./ + [: ([: i. (+ *)) -~ > > and so could I: > > g1=: <./ + i.@(+ *)@-~ > g2=: <./ + [: ([: i. (+ *)) -~ > > but f alone would provide no definition. > > Linda > > -----Original Message----- > From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com > [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Don Kelly > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 2:45 AM > To: programm...@jsoftware.com > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] J in 5 minutes > > Good point - however both tacit and explicit follow certain rules of > the language- > I would put this in terms of a sermon , rather than a dialect- > where the preacher deals directly to the point vs one who takes a > detailed (often circuitive) route to get to the point. Same language- > but one approach goes step by step (often repeatedly) while the other > goes more directly. > Put it this way > MAd (Michigan Algerithmic Decoder- the first language I learned), > Fortran (originally a weak version of MAD) , Basic, Turbo Basic (Basic > with muscle ) are dialects of a language. Pascal, C C++ etc are > dialects of a different language. APl, J and related "languages" are > also dialects of some common language . > These languages, in part, borrow from each other (and dialect borrow- > i.e Fortran borrowed from MAD but left Alfred E. Neuman out of error > messages starting with "this is mad" > > Whatever, too long a day, and too much wine "in Vino excreta taurus" > > Don > > . > > > On 13/03/2014 8:54 PM, robert therriault wrote: > > Well, tacit and explicit could be thought of as dialects, couldn't they? > > > > Cheers, bob > > > > On Mar 13, 2014, at 7:57 PM, Don Kelly <d...@shaw.ca> wrote: > > > >> At least J doesn't have dialects. > >> > >> Don > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
