Unstable? If you have a bug in J8.06, please post it at
http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/System/Interpreter/Bugs
I don't see any bugs that are new in 8.06, and plenty that are fixed
from previous versions.
Henry Rich
On 7/17/2017 7:06 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
Louis, a Jx interpreter implements extensions to the language. It supports
tacit programming full-heartedly and embraces first-class verbs. There are
publicly available patches for Jx extensions, as well as, a pre-built 32
bit Windows dll and Pre-built 32 and 64 bit Linux libs at
http://www.2bestsystems.com/foundation/j/jx0/index.html
but it is an early version of Jx based on the J701 source. Jx has evolved
(e.g., the primitives =.. and =:: were added afterwards) and J's core
engine has evolved rapidly as well; it has been very difficult to catch up.
("Be careful what you wish for.") :)
The current unreleased version of Jx is based on the unstable official J806
beta source and there are some relatively minor Jx glitches. We were
planning to wait for the official J806 to become stable and resolve the Jx
glitches but I might decide instead to release a current version, as is,
soon.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:40 AM, Louis de Forcrand <[email protected]> wrote:
A lot has been said on these forums about Jx and Unbox.
They are unofficial J interpreters (with extensions to the language), are
they not?
Are they publicly available? I couldn't find anything about them on Google
except older messages in the forum archives, but then again unfortunately
this language's name makes it sometimes hard to look up on the web.
Thanks!
Louis
On 16 Jul 2017, at 15:37, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
Sure, and the biggest problem here is the use of globals for arguments.
The verbs themselves can be pure, but all we're really doing is
rearranging the deck chairs.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
<[email protected]> wrote:
At least we agree, I think, on one thing " in explicit programming
[typically] names refer to arguments while in tacit programming they do
not." Thus, is not just a matter of tacit aesthetics, there are some
consequences which might be difficult to evade:
('`u v') =: +/`*:
u@:v f.
+/@:*:
('`u v') =:: +/`*: NB. Jx
┌───────┬──┐
│┌─┬───┐│*:│
││/│┌─┐││ │
││ ││+│││ │
││ │└─┘││ │
│└─┴───┘│ │
└───────┴──┘
u@:v f.
+/@:*:
('`u v') is +/`*: NB.
|domain error
| (m) =:y
is
1 : '(m)=:y'
So, assuming I understood the intended use of your adverb is, I am
afraid
your adverb cannot be used without typical limitations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
