Yes. -- Raul
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Don Guinn <dongu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
