I didn't mean to imply that we should make such a change. I only wonder sometimes if reading J expressions would be easier if one did not have to consider the arguments before determining if a primitive in an expression was used monadically or dyadically. One of the nice things about APL was that a lot more symbols were available. And APL expressions are pretty to look at.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > When considering alternatives like this, it's worth thinking about the > handling of the minus (-) case, where the same symbol is used to indicate > both subtraction and negative numbers. > > Note that the J implementation split the negative number treatment into two > cases: The negative numbers themselves (_123) and the negation of a number > (-123). > > Hypothetically, we might get rid of the ability to negate numbers (after > all, you can always subtract them from zero). And that's the kind of > thinking you need to go through if you want to separate out the monadic and > dyadic verbs. Except you need to treat all operations this way, and come > up with new ways of accessing existing functionality for all of them. > > Finally, note that after doing all this work, the changed implementation > would initially accomplish only one thing: it would be creating new ways of > generating errors. > > -- > Raul > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Don Guinn <dongu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Perhaps I was just being a little picky in the distinction. But the > > distinction between adverbs and conjunctions is important. It is similar > to > > the distinction between monadic and dyadic verbs. > > > > Sometimes I wonder what J would look like if verbs were not ambivalent. > It > > could avoid some confusion for newbies, but would require more > primitives. > > Difficult enough having to stick . and : after ASCII characters to build > > primitives because there are not enough ASCII characters to go around. > > > > Tie (`) is not really necessary as it is easily replaced. > > (;:'+ -') -: (+`-) > > 1 > > But it makes for neat expressions. > > (+`-)/1 2 3 > > 0 > > (;:+ -)/1 2 3 > > |rank error > > | (;:+-)/1 2 3 > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Linda Alvord <lindaalv...@verizon.net > > >wrote: > > > > > Don said "Tie is not an adverb. It is a conjunction." I did not mean > to > > > disparage tie but indicate that it is not necessary for table. I > also > > > meant that t5 was "just a simple adverb". > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
