potential side effects, probably.
--
Raul
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Louis de Forcrand wrote:
> Just wondering why
>
> isgerund=: 3 : 0 :: 0
> y@.]
> 1
> )
>
> isn't an acceptable test for “gerundality”?
>
> I also kind of agree with Bill, i
I quite like this idea. It’s unfortunate that m”n was previously defined
differently,
but as you say conflicts would probably be nonexistent, and I’ve often wanted
to apply one verb to the first element of an array, another to the second, etc.
On my wish list would be something similar for the “e
Just wondering why
isgerund=: 3 : 0 :: 0
y@.]
1
)
isn't an acceptable test for “gerundality”?
I also kind of agree with Bill, in the sense that J doesn’t seem to have been
designed from the ground up (or halfway up for that matter) to facilitate
pr
From my understanding, the reference shows the atomic representation of gerund.
It does not advocate this a way to construct a gerund. moreover it is "foreign"
conjunction.
numbers can be converted from strings using foreign conjunction but it doesn't
mean J encourages writing numbers using thi
I am very sorry to hear that; Jx is certainly not for the faint-hearted.
One of my favorite quotes is "the description is not the described." Even
if one could have a recipe which is a perfect description for producing a
deliciously decadent meal; one cannot, or rather should not, eat the recipe.
"
In J dictionary, only tie conjunction
on verbs was mentioned to produce a gerund.
"
I am afraid you might not be the only one who has reached such conclusion.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, it is a misconception that a gerund can only
be a list (of atomic representations) of verbs. Why? See [0]
Testing for gerund might be a little trickier than one might think at first
sight (and it is context dependent)...
fx=. 5!:0
erase'v'
1
isgerund 'v'
0
'v'fx
|value error: v
|[-0]
So far so good; but,
v=. +
isgerund 'v'
0
'v'fx
+
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:07 PM, 'Pasc
Marshall, I could not agree more with you. Actually, I can, so to speak ;)
Why shall we stop there? Why not to go all the way instead?Jx shows
that the sky does not fall; it is compatible with all the libraries as far
as I know. The only potential issues might occur when error handling code
Personally, I'll be more impressed when I see documentation on the
resulting grammar.
I have had few problems creating code which uses inconsistent grammar.
I can imagine the poetic delight in writing code which takes advantage
of these ambiguities.
I very much understand that this kind of thing
A common objective of many Jx extensions is to unleash the latent power of
an official J interpreter to facilitate the use of higher-order functions
(verbs, adverbs and conjunctions) by providing the means to pass them,
directly, as arguments to other functions.
Arguably, the Dictionary [0] only a
You did. I retract these objections.
That said, given the extreme pervasiveness and quirky nature of this
new error, I think we should get a new, unique error message. (There's
plenty of precedent for that - for example, "index error" is a
specialized error when an index is not in the domain of a
g=:;:'+-/\'
(;0 2{g)(128!:2)i.5
10
(;1 2 3{g)(128!:2)i.5
0 _1 1 _2 2
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Marshall Lochbaum
wrote:
> I stated in my post that any verb which would unbox a boxed verb should
> instead domain error. This is essentially the same thing that explicit
> verbs do whe
I stated in my post that any verb which would unbox a boxed verb should
instead domain error. This is essentially the same thing that explicit
verbs do when their last line has a non-noun result. Failure to do this
would already be a bug, which makes the bugs mentioned in (2)
irrelevant--the incorr
I am thinking of the opposite. In J dictionary, only tie conjunction
on verbs was mentioned to produce a gerund. Boxed verbs had not been
mentioned. Atomic representation of boxed verbs looks like that of
gerund and therefore can work as gerund. IMO this is a backdoor
provided by J implementation.
Some notes:
(1) This suggests that it would be legal for a verb result to be a
verb (because unbox is a verb and the proposal is that it produce verb
results).
(2) Currently, we get crashes in some contexts where this behavior has
been allowed to leak into the interpreter.
(3) By making the leak
Counter arguments:
(1) g"n currently defines a different behavior for gerunds,
(2) The cyclic behavior suggested here could (and probably should) be
implemented without touching the rank operator.
(3) No useful test cases have been proposed.
For example, let us say that we defined `:2 to support
Can I just point out that it's not too late to add some (documented) way
to box verbs/adverbs/conjunctions? These could be treated as gerunds by
everything that currently uses gerunds, and the interpreter can just
throw an error if anything attempts to actually unbox them. They are
much harder to c
17 matches
Mail list logo
