They're paper documents, for the most part.
As near as I can tell, ISI did not put any of its J books online until
J version 5, which is the version where these conjunctions were
removed. For an example of how things looked for version 4 of J, see:
https://web.archive.org/web/20010418084855fw_/htt
If we tried to execute:
# % % ((``)(`h)) (+/)
with your proposed CC mechanism, why wouldn't we get a result of
# %`(+/)`%(`h)
3(`h)
?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 10:54 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
wrote:
>
> using either ``(`:6) or `h
>
> means 3 parameters in total, w
where are the "old documents" i keep hearing about that explain the tacit
adverbs and conjunctions?
can someone post links please?
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
using either ``(`:6) or `h
means 3 parameters in total, with leftmost conjunction bound with initial u/v
and returns an adverb to bind the 3rd parameter which will become the v
parameter to right conjunction. so
# +/ (`h) %
+/ % #
then for the 4 tine, triple conjunction
# % u ((``)(`h)) (+/
Hmm...
You do have some extra parenthesis there.
Or, this works:
% ((+/`) (``:6) ]:) #
+/ % #
And, I suppose I should point out that
{{% +/ u v}}
would work similarly to your (((+/`) h ]:)(% h)), and is concise.
That said, ((``)`)(`:6) is presumably shorthand for something longer
(you nee
To get the intuitive potential functionality instead of a syntax error
AAC must be written in form of ACA as (AA)C]: , and
AACA must also be transformed into ACA as (AA)CA
as concrete example
% ((+/`) (`(`:6)) ]:) #
+/ % #
with h =. `(`:6)
(+/`) is a new train that used to have to be writ
I have to be repetitive in first part of response because it seems to have been
missed in later discussion
``:6 is all that is needed to produce a hook.
a replacement to ` that forms gerunds out of m`n or m`v or u`n is needed. I
call that replacement "ti".
That is needed for the u n execution
But AAC and AACA are not adverb trains, and as near as I can tell have
always been syntax errors.
Anyways, it's difficult to talk about such things without useful examples.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 7:25 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
wrote:
>
>
> Overbracketting AA..A is nee
But (V N) is not a hook.
Anyways, it's difficult to talk about such things without useful examples.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 6:36 PM Henry Rich wrote:
>
> I'm sure somebody will like it.
>
> But it can never be used to produce (V N), because V`N does not convert
> N into an AR.
Overbracketting AA..A is needed because AAC is not defined, and to get AACA,
(AA)CA must be done.
CAA is already defined equivalent to C(AA)
On Monday, October 4, 2021, 06:24:30 p.m. EDT, Raul Miller
wrote:
I do not think I need to "over bracket" now.
Near as I can tell, J903'
yes, from my point of view they’re exactly equally anomalous: not at all
but that depends on the concept of “conjunction” one has in mind
Am 05.10.21 um 00:41 schrieb Elijah Stone:
FWIW I support the CC hook and find the gerunds inelegant.
But is not a conjunction which produces a noun simila
We have the example of (m : n) which routinely produces any part of speech.
The adverb (5!:0) can likewise produce anything.
Conjunctions producing conjunctions are used in the calculus addon.
So: unusual, but not anomalous.
Henry Rich
On 10/4/2021 6:41 PM, Elijah Stone wrote:
FWIW I support
FWIW I support the CC hook and find the gerunds inelegant.
But is not a conjunction which produces a noun similarly anomalous to a
conjunction which produces an adverb?
-E
On Mon, 4 Oct 2021, Henry Rich wrote:
I'm sure somebody will like it.
But it can never be used to produce (V N), beca
I don’t have the impression the discusson is polemic and unhelpful.
Even less so since I read your post.
1. I halfway agree on the first part, parentheses serve a purpose;
still, if you can get rid of them without much of a sacrifice,
that’s a good thing. You may always write them if you fe
I'm sure somebody will like it.
But it can never be used to produce (V N), because V`N does not convert
N into an AR.
Henry Riich
On 10/4/2021 6:33 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
Is it worth noting that the ``:6 version of train formation can be
extended to produce arbitrary length trains?
For exam
Is it worth noting that the ``:6 version of train formation can be
extended to produce arbitrary length trains?
For example, these are equivalent:
V1 (C1 ` C2 ` C3 (``:6) C4) V2
V1 C1 V2 V1 C2 V2 V1 C3 V2 V1 C4 V2
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 6:22 PM Henry Rich wrote:
I do not think I need to "over bracket" now.
Near as I can tell, J903's version an adverb train produces the same
consequences that we get from j902's version of an adverb train.
Do you have any examples where this is not the case?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:35 PM 'Pascal J
Yes, good point. The question is, Is that simple enough that when the
user says 'I want a hook' we say 'Sure, it's u ([. (``:6) ].) v'; or is
it worth a parsing rule to be able to say 'Sure, it's u ([. ].) v'..
This is a subjective question. And depends on what else (C C) could mean.
Henry R
I do not know of any useful examples of verb hooks formed from a pair
of conjunctions applied to a pair of verbs.
However, I do know how to form a verb hook from a pair of conjunctions
applied to a pair of verbs, in the current j903 beta:
+ ([. (``:6) ].) -
+ -
No new parsing rule necessary.
The discussion is moving toward the polemic and unhelpful. I write to
try to suppress suggestions that have no hope of being implemented soon.
1. Reducing parentheses is not a laudable goal; in fact, I see it as the
opposite. The train A A C should, if possible, mean something different
from
> That said, this was also a syntax error when we did not have
conjunction trains. So I am not sure why it should be an important
issue now.
if you stick to old permissible AA...A trains then you don't need to "over"
bracket (AA..A)
for CAA..A you also don't need to bracket (for practical purpos
Hmm...
Conceptually speaking, the A A C A syntax error could be eliminated
without the addition of any new parsing rules, if A A C would
translate to two parse elements (combining the two adverbs and putting
the C back as-is).
That said, this was also a syntax error when we did not have
conjuncti
“shifted upper row” for those who use a keyboard
the design of which is optimized to being able
to write the word “typewriter” on that very row
and optimized to not be too fast to type on so the
typebars don’t get entangled … yes, we certainly
have that problem with computers; and no, we don’t
wa
Going to use reply to Pepe as a case for changing trains before its too late
(ie before they get used)
> hook=. `(`:6) NB. (Equivalently, hook=. ``:6)
This is an excellent contribution that shows the CC hook (defined as duplicate
arguments: (u C1 v)(u C2 v) offers no benefits.
The only ima
The first response about the items being characters is probably correct in
this case. Instead of
> 1 {"1 data
, you may want to try something like
". &> 1 {"1 data
but be aware that an empty cell will give you a column of output in this
case as well.
For example,
". &> '0';'2';'123'
0 2 123
bu
Alternatively, looking at the result of $L:0 on your boxed data can be
informative. (And, if it's deeply boxed, $L:1, $L:2, ...)
Boxing adds complexity to your data structures, so it's best to avoid
unnecessary boxing. But sometimes boxing is necessary...
Good luck,
--
Raul
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021
26 matches
Mail list logo
