I do not know of any useful examples of verb hooks formed from a pair
of conjunctions applied to a pair of verbs.
However, I do know how to form a verb hook from a pair of conjunctions
applied to a pair of verbs, in the current j903 beta:
+ ([. (``:6) ].) -
+ -
No new parsing rule necessary.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 6:05 PM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The discussion is moving toward the polemic and unhelpful. I write to
> try to suppress suggestions that have no hope of being implemented soon.
>
> 1. Reducing parentheses is not a laudable goal; in fact, I see it as the
> opposite. The train A A C should, if possible, mean something different
> from (A A) C because Why have two ways to say the same thing? We are
> trying to define a grammar with NO reserved words except parentheses;
> perhaps only Ken could have attempted it; there are just a handful of
> productions to define; they should be as powerful as possible, with as
> little duplication as possible.
>
> 2. I found the production (A C)->((x A) C x) useful enough in my work
> that I gave it a name, the adverbial hook.
>
> 3. (C C) -> ((u C v) C) is a drastic change to the language. It consumes
> two words and creates something that consumes one or two more words. Is
> it brilliant? Is it the camel's nose in the tent? I personally think
> it raises a stench to the nostrils of the Almighty. I could be wrong.
> But anyone suggesting such a fundamental change must arrive first with
> SHORT EXAMPLES showing why the language should consider such forms,
> which will be so unfamiliar to the J programmer. If the knowledgeable J
> community is convinced, we can consider whether the forms should be
> implemented.
>
> A couple of users (including me) suggested (C0 C1)->((u C0 v) (u C1
> v)). Why? Because it allows
> * easy production of hooks, with V ([. ].) V
> * execution of verbs, with V ([. ].) N-phrase
>
> That's a pretty good argument, SUPPORTED BY EXAMPLE. Hooks are important.
>
> I am very reluctant to make changes that don't have demonstrated
> benefits, being a disciple of Omar:
>
> O take the cash in hand and waive the rest;
> Ah, the brave music of a /distant/ drum!
>
> Henry Rich
>
>
> On 10/4/2021 4:33 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
> >> That said, this was also a syntax error when we did not have
> > conjunction trains. So I am not sure why it should be an important
> > issue now.
> >
> > if you stick to old permissible AA...A trains then you don't need to "over"
> > bracket (AA..A)
> >
> > for CAA..A you also don't need to bracket (for practical purposes)
> >
> > for AA..ACA, you do need to over bracket the left part.
> >
> >
> > There are new powers that allow including unbound Cs inside adverb trains.
> > That is awesome!!! The disadvantage of imposing tedium on these new powers
> > is greater than the advantage of not double typing out u in uCu, in my
> > opinion.
> >
> >
> > On Monday, October 4, 2021, 04:20:13 p.m. EDT, Raul Miller
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hmm...
> >
> > Conceptually speaking, the A A C A syntax error could be eliminated
> > without the addition of any new parsing rules, if A A C would
> > translate to two parse elements (combining the two adverbs and putting
> > the C back as-is).
> >
> > That said, this was also a syntax error when we did not have
> > conjunction trains. So I am not sure why it should be an important
> > issue now.
> >
> > I also don't know if there are other implications. I haven't thought
> > about it that much.
> >
> > Are you aware of other important cases?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
>
>
> --
> 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
