Good point. That would be a good use for (C0 C1). I have convinced
myself that it is impossible to generate a hook from the current trains
(except by using `:6).
I point out that your very ingenious combination is not a full
replacement for {{u v}} because if the desired hook is supported by
special code, your version won't get the special code. Another argument
for (C0 C1).
Other unused trains are (C0 A1 C2), (N0 V1), and (N0 N1).
Let's think about it a while; but I am inclined to get (C0 C1) into the
9.03 release.
Henry Rich
On 9/28/2021 6:14 AM, Elijah Stone wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021, Henry Rich wrote:
All I would be interested in reading is a SHORT example of something
that can't be done without changing the language.
Currently possible, but very inconvenient: define a 'hook' conjunction
tacitly. (Useless as such, but useful if one wishes to produce a hook
from a tacit modifier, as I did.) I was able to come up with the
following abomination: ']. (([:(]: ]: ])) (]:~) [) [.'. Compare with
the explicit {{u v}}. (It simplifies if one cares only about the
monadic case, which was the case for me, but not by much.)
I propose a conjunctive fork: interpret C0 C1 (which is currently
meaningless) as (u C0 v) (u C1 v).
This doesn't solve the more general problem of producing arbitrary
forks-- _some_ arrangement of C0 C1 C2 should give u C0 v u C1 v u C2
v --but would still be helpful.
-E
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
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
