RM> Since you reference x. and y., J's explicit interpreter wants
RM> to be involved in the execution of the verb. But for a dyad,
RM> you need a ':' line.
RM> Since I did not reference x. or y., J's explicit interpreter
RM> produced a verb and got out of the way.
But we both referenced m. which triggers "explicit" in my understanding
of the Dictionary. Also the mere position to the right of "1 :"
and the stringiness signify "needs the explicit interpreter" to me
(reading the DoJ). Therefore I could understand if we both had to
provide the empty monad part but I still do not understand why your
form is blessed with more acceptance. I'll have a look into the
source to see how the x./y. matters.
MN> The only working "truly tacit" (i.e., without 1 : ) adverb
MN> definition I could come up with so far looks a bit atrocious:
MN> dc =. (]:&,@]) ,~ [
RM> That seems to be a generic property of tacit adverbs and
RM> conjunctions (and I think this has something to do with
RM> why conjunction forks were withdrawn).
In the meantime, I found the much more agreeable tacit definition:
dc2 =. (,&)@[ , ]
(In my dim recollection the reason given for the cutting down
on phrasal forms was "too complex to maintain and an obstacle
for providing better debugging facilities".)
Martin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
