Thanks Henry!
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, 15:47 Henry Rich, <[email protected]> wrote:
> The next beta will remove one leading blank line from the display.
>
> Henry Rich
>
> On 1/19/2021 9:22 PM, Ric Sherlock wrote:
> > In a similar vein,
> > The first line of a multi-line definition doesn't respect indentation,
> so:
> > mutate=: {{idxmut=. I. x >: (*/$y) ?@$ 0
> > (populate idxmut) idxmut"_} y
> > }}
> > mutate
> > 4 : 0
> > idxmut=. I. x >: (*/$y) ?@$ 0
> > (populate idxmut) idxmut"_} y
> > )
> > mutate=: {{ idxmut=. I. x >: (*/$y) ?@$ 0
> > (populate idxmut) idxmut"_} y
> > }}
> > mutate
> > 4 : 0
> > idxmut=. I. x >: (*/$y) ?@$ 0
> > (populate idxmut) idxmut"_} y
> > )
> >
> > A work-around for the above is not to use the first line, however we then
> > end up with an extraneous empty line:
> > mutate=: {{
> > idxmut=. I. x >: (*/$y) ?@$ 0
> > (populate idxmut) idxmut"_} y
> > }}
> > 4 : 0
> >
> > idxmut=. I. x >: (*/$y) ?@$ 0
> > (populate idxmut) idxmut"_} y
> > )
> >
> > Would it be problematic to remove the first line from the definition if
> it
> > doesn't contain anything except whitespace or comments? Note that
> > currently, if the first line contains only comments and whitespace, they
> > are omitted from the definition.
> >
> >
> > If we explicitly set the type of definition it works OK.
> > mutate=: {{)d
> > idxmut=. I. x >: (*/$y) ?@$ 0
> > (populate idxmut) idxmut"_} y
> > }}
> > mutate
> > 4 : 0
> > idxmut=. I. x >: (*/$y) ?@$ 0
> > (populate idxmut) idxmut"_} y
> > )
> >
> > None of this impacts anything except keeping things tidy :) !
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:08 AM Henry Rich <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Starting with the next beta JE will remove excess trailing blanks at the
> >> end, leaving just one space.
> >>
> >> Henry Rich
> >>
> >> On 1/19/2021 1:18 PM, John Baker wrote:
> >>> Direct definition has added another, more convenient way to define
> local
> >> J
> >>> words
> >>> on the fly. It is particularly useful for creating verbs, adverbs and
> >>> conjunctions
> >>> within explicit definitions.
> >>>
> >>> However there are gotchas. One thing I've noticed is the repeated
> >> addition
> >>> of a
> >>> trailing blank to DDs within words when you redefine a word. Consider:
> >>>
> >>> ddblanks=: 3 : 0
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> NB.*ddblanks v-- show blank addition for local DDs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> NB. local dd verb
> >>>
> >>> dad=. {{x + y}}
> >>>
> >>> x dad y
> >>>
> >>> )
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Now fetch and redefine the word - JOD does a lot of this:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 0!:0 'ddblanks=:' , 5!:5 <'ddblanks'
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Every time the previous line is executed another blank is appended to
> the
> >>> local DD.
> >>>
> >>> After half a dozen applications ddblanks looks like:
> >>>
> >>> 3 : 0
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> NB.*ddblanks v-- show blank addition for DDs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> NB. local dd verb
> >>>
> >>> dad=. {{ x + y }}
> >>>
> >>> x dad y
> >>>
> >>> )
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I can understand the need to add a trailing blank once but is it
> >> necessary
> >>> to keep doing this?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> >> https://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
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
