Louis, call me Pepe (which is the nickname for Jose); that is how friends
call me.
Even if first-class verbs are not in compliance with the J Dictionary,
official interpreters allow them but one has to wrestle with the
interpreters. Using first-class verbs, one can operate on verbs [0] in a
similar way one can operate on nouns [1]. Jx extensions make their use
more pleasant and goes beyond first-class verbs; Jx also facilitates to
pass verbs, adverbs and conjunctions to verbs, adverbs and conjunctions to
produce verbs, adverbs and conjunctions.
[0] Tacit (unorthodox) version
https://rosettacode.org/wiki/First-class_functions#Tacit_.
28unorthodox.29_version
[1] Tacit (unorthodox) version
https://rosettacode.org/wiki/First-class_functions/Use_
numbers_analogously#Tacit_.28unorthodox.29_version
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Louis de Forcrand <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I’d guess is that by “unstable” he meant “currently being modified".
> In any case, thanks for the link Jose (what should I call you? Pepe?).
> If there was one thing I could add to J it would be better support for
> first-class verbs (arrays of verbs, passing verbs as arguments), if only
> for the beauty of it, but I know this is neither easy nor practical in
> reality.
> However trying out your new version of Jx is; I’ll take a look at it if you
> release it. In the meantime I’ll look into your J701 version when I have
> the time!
>
> Louis
>
> > On 17 Jul 2017, at 20:21, HenryRich <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
