I will ignore this thread as it is not talking about possible extensions to
J but a language similar to and based on some concepts of J.
On Oct 8, 2017 10:51 AM, "Erling Hellenäs" wrote:
> Don, this thread is about the latest beta release of Jx. There are new
> features which we discuss. /Erling
Don, this thread is about the latest beta release of Jx. There are new
features which we discuss. /Erling
On 2017-10-08 17:30, Don Guinn wrote:
=..
|spelling error
| =..
| ^
|[-0]
=::
|spelling error
| =::
| ^
|[-0]
It is true that you can use =. and =: in building tacit ex
You'll avoid using this, but it's there if you really need it for
something special? /Erling
On 2017-10-08 16:54, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
I messed up the last part of my last message. It should have been:
You can get what you want using instead,
(".@:('p'"_) , 0 $ 'p' =:: ]) 'erling'
It is not clear to me to which post you were responding. However, we are
discussing (or trying to be discussing) Jx primitives and both =.. and =::
make sense in Jx; see the first post on this subject:
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017-September/048957.html
On Sun, Oct 8, 201
=..
|spelling error
| =..
| ^
|[-0]
=::
|spelling error
| =::
| ^
|[-0]
It is true that you can use =. and =: in building tacit expressions, but
like using something like 3+2 in writing a tacit expression. It disappears
as when one examines the resultant tacit expression. 5 is f
I messed up the last part of my last message. It should have been:
You can get what you want using instead,
(".@:('p'"_) , 0 $ 'p' =:: ]) 'erling'
erling
p
erling
erase'p'
1
or
(".@:('p'"_) , 0 $ 'p' =.. ]) 'erling'
erling
p
erling
since =.. is easier to type and it is equival
Hi Erling,
This might be repetitive because I have not read carefully the responses to
your question.
Allow me to try to illustrate the issue using =:: first. The Jx verb =::
can be modeled using the explicit,
cop=. '(x)=: y'(dyad :)
The sentence,
(p , 0 $ 'p' =:: ]) 'erling'
|value er
Attacking the victims and protecting the bullies are not going to
recreate the good atmosphere. /Erling
On 2017-10-08 16:32, Erling Hellenäs wrote:
I also remember it as extremely nice and friendly a long time ago.
/Erling
On 2017-10-08 16:19, Roger Hui wrote:
Many people here have a habit o
I also remember it as extremely nice and friendly a long time ago. /Erling
On 2017-10-08 16:19, Roger Hui wrote:
Many people here have a habit of giving long lectures to people about
things they already know to make it appear like they are totally stupid
and they themselves are very clever and a
I can remind me of many times when I found that you did not respond to
anything I asked for or wanted to discuss in a thread, but repeatedly
found small unimportant things to to criticize, without caring that your
criticism was totally unaccounted for and most often totally wrong,
repeatedly an
> Many people here have a habit of giving long lectures to people about
> things they already know to make it appear like they are totally stupid
> and they themselves are very clever and are teaching this stupid person
> even the most basic things. /Erling
At 2004-10-21 09:44:37 -0400, Eric Ivers
I think you might be projecting your own motivational structure onto
other people? (Our own point of view is, after all, our basis for
understanding others. Or, at least, that's a theory sometimes worth
considering.)
Personally, I tend to air reviewing of basics a lot because I find
reviewing basi
This answer was based on a mixup of persons I did. Excuse me. /Erling
On 2017-10-08 10:58, Erling Hellenäs wrote:
Many people here have a habit of giving long lectures to people about
things they already know to make it appear like they are totally
stupid and they themselves are very clever and
Maybe you should then learn the same lesson you give me. /Erling
On 2017-10-08 11:26, Louis de Forcrand wrote:
Maybe he didn’t understand your original question?
In any case it seems you could use a lesson in good manners.
Louis
On 8 Oct 2017, at 10:58, Erling Hellenäs wrote:
Many people h
Maybe he didn’t understand your original question?
In any case it seems you could use a lesson in good manners.
Louis
> On 8 Oct 2017, at 10:58, Erling Hellenäs wrote:
>
> Many people here have a habit of giving long lectures to people about things
> they already know to make it appear like t
We are discussing the copula verbs which have a different syntax. /Erling
On 2017-10-08 10:58, Erling Hellenäs wrote:
Many people here have a habit of giving long lectures to people about
things they already know to make it appear like they are totally
stupid and they themselves are very clever
Hi all!
The second version seems to work.
('p'~ , 0 $ 'p' =.. ]) 'erling'
|value error: p
| ('p'~,0$'p'=..])'erling'
(3 : 'p' , 0 $ 'p' =.. ]) 'erling'
erling
(3 : 'p' , 0 $ 'p' =.. ]) 'fredrik'
fredrik
(3 : 'p' , 0 $ 'p' =.. ]) 'petter'
petter
((3 : 'p') , 0 $ 'p' =.. ]) 'p
Many people here have a habit of giving long lectures to people about
things they already know to make it appear like they are totally stupid
and they themselves are very clever and are teaching this stupid person
even the most basic things. /Erling
On 2017-10-08 01:25, Don Guinn wrote:
I don
18 matches
Mail list logo
