I have to be repetitive in first part of response because it seems to have been missed in later discussion
``:6 is all that is needed to produce a hook. a replacement to ` that forms gerunds out of m`n or m`v or u`n is needed. I call that replacement "ti". That is needed for the u n execution example of your CC. The only reason you would ever need a modifier to execute u n (or y) is if u returns a string that needs to be processed by another modifier (such as 1 : or 3 : ) in order to produce a function. Therefore all uses of implemented CC are served by ti(`:6)(optional extra Adverb to process a noun result) USE CASE (as requested) All 902 modifier trains are composable by simple juxtaposition. AAA and A compose with whichever is positioned on the left will send its result to the one on the right. Composability is high value awesomeness! My CC proposal keeps that composability for the new enhanced modifier trains that include CA and ACA (both conjunctions) forcing (AC[:) as a replacement for what should just be AC harms composability as well: A (AC[:) has to be written as A (AC[:) [: . Adding a further A to left means (A (A (AC[:) [:) [:) if as an example all of the As and ACAs were named, and you couldn't just go inside the ACA to do ((AAA)C[:) I don't believe conjunction reflexitivity is worth the composability nightmares. > 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? AAC is not defined, btw, but if it were I would strongly hope that it were (AA)C]: ie what (AA)C and AC should be. It is a respectable philosophy to have unique trains that force explicit parentheses. I would prefer fewer parsing rules with auto pairing of parameters for the pure blissful cleanliness of it all (but not insisting on the full purity extreme). Your view forces a lot of memorization that might have been an important factor in the original decommissioning. On Monday, October 4, 2021, 06:05:47 p.m. EDT, 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
