technically, 1`2
1 2 exists as a non-error though silly use unless trying to trigger error if an boxed paramerter were provided, which still seems like a silly use, considering both that such careful guarding would guard against so much more parameters, and , will also fail with boxed paired with unboxed parameter, and , provides the natural :: "deal with error" function, that can't as easily be done with ` errors. , behaves identically to ` with nouns. There's no real reason to use ` with nouns with its current definition. I'd suspect that any historical use would be for purely esoteric obfuscation motives. so if 9.03 is already committed to breaking things. I think reworking ` to produce ar s all the time (which is what "ti" is defined to do, as well as "atomic representation of unboxed nouns in place of those nouns." you refer), I think would provide a welcome specialization of ` for use in gerund forming. This would solve the following common errors as well f`0`]} to transform head (or other specific) index of an array. This form is allowed in } as long as nouns are properly gerundified. On Friday, October 15, 2021, 09:43:56 a.m. EDT, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: Perhaps also worth noting that ` could have its definition updated to use the atomic representation of unboxed nouns in place of those nouns. That's not exactly the definition of your ti conjunction, but it also would not change the behavior of any current non-error case, and would address the common cases. (Also, boxing in general is going to require a little extra coding work because the abstraction is all about combining data structures which otherwise would not be combined.) Thanks, -- Raul On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 8:28 AM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <[email protected]> wrote: > > On the off chance anyone forgot or is not sick of hearing it, CC is still > superfluous given a conjunction called "ti" (or redefinition of `) that > builds a gerund from nouns in addition to verbs > > > 1 (& :. (((-ti)(`:6)) & ].)) o. > > 1&o. :.(_1&o.) > > but also note that the original {{-m}} definition met the "semi-tacit" > criteria of returning a tacit expression without any significant computation > > > but I am liking the CCC definition (more than similar/equivalent ACC). Which > can also be used to construct uACu from an A and C with: > > > ((([.A) C [.) a:) > > > if AC were uA(Cv), original request could be simplified as > > > (& :. ({{-m}} & ) NB. or with the ti construct > > > > On Friday, October 15, 2021, 03:57:46 a.m. EDT, Elijah Stone > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Oct 2021, Henry Rich wrote: > > > oi =: (& :. ((-([.].)) & ].)) o. > > 1 oi > > 1&o. :.(_1&o.) > > Putting the V N bident to good use already, I see :) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
