Let me state first that I do not disagree with your proposal and what
Pascal is also suggesting (as I understand them). Actually, that is what I
suggested to Thomas to explore as change for the current implementation for
Jx, before this thread started, in a private conversation.
The current behavior of the official interpreters regarding x (a0 a1) when
the product of (x a0) is an adverb has been and still is a source of
frustration, particularly to adverbial tacit writers; see the post [0] for
a recent discussion.
We seem to agree that the current version Dictionary is incomplete
regarding this issue. Furthermore, as far as know this case has never been
illustrated in any related documentation either (or even in the Forums).
Was this proposed behavior the one intended? I still doubt it. Again, did
Roger make two mistakes in a row? Did he not test the intended
implementation behavior in two separate occasions? I am giving him the
benefit of the doubt.
[0] [Jprogramming] Tacit Toolkit (was dyadic J)
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015-December/043695.html
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> I haven't said what I meant to say. I'll try to do better.
>
> It seems clear to me that passing an adverb into an adverb must be
> forbidden. Otherwise, why would
> (A0 A1) be anything other than executing A1 on A0, without waiting for any
> further operand? And we don't want that.
>
> And we want X0 (A1 A2) to produce the same result as (X0 A1) A2. If (X0
> A1) produces an adverb A3, the result then needs to be (A3 A2). I'm
> suggesting just that - that the result of
> X0 (A1 A2) in that case be the adverb (A3 A2) instead of syntax error.
>
> Henry Rich
>
>
>
>
> On 3/16/2016 5:22 AM, Henry Rich wrote:
>
>> I didn't mean THAT J7.01, I meant 1990's J7. The 'support' in J6 was
>> unintentional.
>>
>> The documentation of x (A0 A1) <-> (x A1) A2 was removed
>> from the Dictionary when all the other trains were; it was replaced by
>> wording that says (A0 A1) is an adverb. What else should it mean but that
>> (x A0) is passed in to A1?
>>
>> My suggestion is that if
>>
>> N0 A1 A2
>>
>> has a meaning, namely (N0 A1) A2,
>>
>> N0 (A1 A2)
>>
>> should have the same meaning. Wasn't that the original definition, back
>> when we had all the trains defined?
>>
>> Henry Rich
>>
>> On 3/15/2016 11:20 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
