Currently `:6 has a high tolerance for each, but there is a distinction between
conjunctions and "compositions" in your example
( + ar , < +ar, -ar) `:6
+ (+ -)
('@' aar , < +ar, -ar)`:6
@(+ -)
(< '@' aar , < +ar, -ar)`:6
+@-
(< '@' aar , < +ar, -ar) -: +@- ar
1
You are suggesti
I think it's more like this:
A sequence of ARs *may* represent an AR.
Limitations include:
(1) parsing rules apply. Syntactically invalid sequences do not represent an AR.
(2) domain rules apply. Verbs which do not cooperate will not represent an AR.
(3) implementation limits apply. If we run ou
You are suggesting that a list of ARs be construed as a valid AR. I
agree with the goal. I worry that the encoding is not reversible.
+-+
|+-+-+|
||f|+-+-+||
|| ||g|h|||
|| |+-+-+||
|+-+-+|
+-+
Is this (f (g h)) (as it must be if f is a verb)
or (g f h) (if f is a
