X (a0 a1) is fully parsed once the application of the adverb train to X
happens, so no further parsing is done and the parsing rules will not
help us resolve what to do next. I don't think the language specifies
what happens when an adverb is applied to an adverb, or even
acknowledges that it can happen in the first place (is it in the
dictionary?) Previous versions of J did not signal a syntax error. I
suspect many people "grew up" on "X (a0 a1)" is "(X a0) a1" and is now
part of their vocabulary, as this evidence might suggest:
http://www.jsoftware.com/help/learning/15.htm
"15.3 Compositions of Adverbs
If A and B are adverbs, then the bident (A B) denotes an adverb which
applies A and then B. The scheme is:
x (A B) means (x A) B
"
So what should the application of an adverb to an adverb be? I don't
think it is unreasonable to think it should be the train of adverbs as
opposed to a syntax error. Otherwise the description of x (A B) becomes
more complex and thou hast multiplied unnecessarily.
On 03/15/2016 01:17 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
This gets into the guts of
http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dicte.htm and the distinction
between a train and direct use.
Basically, though, these two expressions are different:
X (a0 a1)
(X a0) a1
The first forms a train, (which, hypothetically speaking could be
associated with some name for later use). The second skips that step
and jumps straight into execution.
And, syntax is what distinguishes these two cases.
Meanwhile, when you mix in phrases which form adverbs (such as your 1
: '/') example, here, syntax does not go away - and if you throw in
half formed ideas with mechanical systems with well defined behaviors,
things are going to go awry when those ideas and those systems
conflict.
This seems somewhat apropos (from keiapl.org/anec/):
"[D]esign really should be concerned largely, not so much with
collecting a lot of ideas, but with shaping them with a view of
economy and balance. I think a good designer should make more use of
Occam’s razor than of the dustbag of a vacuum cleaner, and I thought
this was important enough that it would be worthwhile looking for some
striking examples of sorts of overelaborate design. I was surprised
that I didn’t find it all that easy, except perhaps for the [designs]
of programming languages and American automobiles. I think that
designers seem to have this feeling, a gut feeling of a need for
parsimony."
I suppose, all successful ideas go through the "half formed" stage -
and maybe it's mostly the good ones which survive their failure modes?
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
