Why is CVA -> (CV)A more natural? Convention with trains is for the parser to
make them as long as possible, since you can add the parens manually if you
need the shorter train. CVA should be consistent with CCA and CVC.
It's true there are multiple ways to express the same thing; there always are.
Making AC consistent with CA is interesting, but since 2-trains are inherently
asymmetric anyway (except CC), it seems less important. And changing AC
breaks compatibility, whereas adding CVA does not.
On Sun, 1 May 2022, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
There is a more "obvious" interpretation of CVA
(CV)A is the more natural extension of uCV A. (C(VA)) would be a possibility
that is less obvious.
Your proposal can be accomplished with
CV(].A) NB. also allows CV([.A) for flexibility of A binding.
The current interpretation of AC could be accomplished with
(AC[.) a:
which would let AC be the "more natural consistent with CA" be the conjunction
uACv
On Sunday, May 1, 2022, 01:54:06 a.m. EDT, Elijah Stone <elro...@elronnd.net> wrote:
(Side-note: how come CCA and CVC are legal, but not CVA? I think CVA should be
uCv V vA. That seems fairly obvious and consistent, and it would simplify the
above definition of under_lock. AVC should be analogous. I think this was
proposed this a while ago but nothing came of it.)
-E
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
