No, you would have to go way back; see, http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2008-February/009871.html
Incidentally, I do not think there is a bug in the current implementation about (x a1) a2 <-> x (a1 a2) This equivalence was removed at some point from the Dictionary maybe because it seems ambiguous: Does (x a1) a2 is meant literally as a train or the product of (x a1) is passed as an argument to a2? The issue arises when the product is an adverb and the latter interpretation was implemented by mistake and was patched afterwards. Did Roger made two mistakes in a row? It is possible but I find that hard to believe. On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > ? How far back do you have to go to find an old system that allows an > adverb as an operand to an adverb? J7 didn't allow it, did it? > > Henry Rich > > > On 3/15/2016 7:03 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > >> What else would it do? The very old, and current Jx, behavior is to pass >> (N0 A1) as an argument to A2 but that is blasphemy :) >> >> (With conjunction giving an error) The current official J does no support >> the Golden Age interpretation of C A but Jx does; so, it Jx would keep >> going. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think the motivation is that N0 (A1 A2) just oughta behave like ((N0 A1) >>> A2) because, well, what else would it do? It does behave that way when >>> the >>> result R3 is noun/verb/conjunction (with conjunction giving an error); >>> why >>> not adverb? Methinks the current behavior is simply a bug. >>> >>> If it turned out to be difficult - if creating the composite (R3 A2) >>> posed >>> problems - I would rethink. >>> >>> Henry Rich >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/15/2016 6:12 PM, Raul Miller wrote: >>> >>> So, ok... >>>> >>>> Adverb *trains* get created by "6 Bident". >>>> >>>> Adverb *application* gets handled by "3 Adverb". >>>> >>>> And, yes, this includes the application of adverb trains. >>>> >>>> And, yes, the dictionary's coverage of the behavior adverb trains is >>>> pretty much just a few examples. >>>> >>>> And, more generally, error cases can be reimplemented to do something >>>> other than produce an error. There's some room for small bits of >>>> linguistic drift. >>>> >>>> That said, there's the question of usefulness. If you defined adverb >>>> train behavior such that v (A1 A2) where v A1 produces an adverb to be >>>> an adverb result of the form ((v A1) A2), we could do that, and that >>>> would prevent the error from being a syntax error. But that would also >>>> mean that if someone accidentally wrote (A1 A2) but meant to write >>>> something else they would not get an error. But both of those seem to >>>> be rather unlikely. >>>> >>>> So, are there any motivating useful examples which would make this >>>> particular change worth including in the official interpreter? >>>> >>>> (And, yes, that is a really tough question. But I think it's a fair >>>> question.) >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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
