am, "Henry Rich" wrote:
> I have added to
>
> http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/cor
>
> especially notes 1, 2, and 12 and new example 27 at the end. See if this
> would have helped.
>
> Henry Rich
>
> On 2/12/2016 2:03 PM, Matthew Baulch wrote:
to do this tacitly, but yeah, doing it tacitly such
> >> that it triggers when a verb is executed would be tricky (possible,
> >> but overly verbose to accomplish). Also, not sure if that would have
> >> any uses...
> >>
> >> Personally, I rarely ev
any correction.
>>
>> Cheers.
>> It's pretty well explained at
>>
>> http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/NounExplicitDefinition
>>
>> The question is, How would you know to read that? Suggestions welcomed.
>>
>> When you say "
Nor the first it seems. Just + can replace >: then. (it's not replacing if
it still has to be used.)
On 12 Feb 2016 12:56 pm, "Matthew Baulch" wrote:
> Correction for the second. @. (dyad) can replace ^: (dyad) which can
> replace | (monad).
>
> I didn't think
Correction for the second. @. (dyad) can replace ^: (dyad) which can
replace | (monad).
I didn't think that through very well!
On 12 Feb 2016 12:49 pm, "Matthew Baulch" wrote:
> If I understand correctly, the result of 0 : 0 may be referenced as any
> part of the expres
suitable for a task is most often preferred as it
usually leads to the clearest code.
On 12 Feb 2016 4:38 am, "Raul Miller" wrote:
> [posting my response in-line for context]
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Matthew Baulch
> wrote:
> > Thanks everyone. This (let&
l details are spelled out in several pages starting at
http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/cor
Henry Rich
On 2/11/2016 12:55 AM, Matthew Baulch wrote:
> Thanks everyone. This (let's say) creative use of 0 : 0 makes sense to me
> now. I wonder if it's an accidental consequen
p14 c15 p15 c16 p16 c17
> p17 c18 p18 c19 p19 c20 p20 c21 p21 c22 p22 c23 p23 c24 p24
> c25 p25 c26 p26 c27 p27 c28 p28 c29 p29 c30 p30
> )
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> --
> Raul
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Matthew Baulch
> wrote:
> > Suppose I
Can't see it in
NuVoc or the Dictionary. Of course, I may have overlooked it.
Honestly, to obtain something simple like multi-line noun definitions, ".
does seem like quite a heavy-handed tool. It does work however, so I
probably shouldn't grumble.
Cheers.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1
c3 p3 c4 p4 c5 p5 c6 p6 c7 p7 c8 p8 c9 p9
> c10 p10 c11 p11 c12 p12 c13 p13 c14 p14 c15 p15 c16 p16 c17
> p17 c18 p18 c19 p19 c20 p20 c21 p21 c22 p22 c23 p23 c24 p24
> c25 p25 c26 p26 c27 p27 c28 p28 c29 p29 c30 p30
> )
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> --
> Raul
>
y
>
> Henry Rich
>
>
> On 2/10/2016 5:16 AM, Henry Rich wrote:
>
>> The operation you describe is
>>
>> _2 (128!:2)&.>\ y
>>
>> I think the current definition of 128!:2 is a better primitive definition.
>>
>> I agree that it deserve
ot; wrote:
> Look also at 128!:2, which takes a verb as a string argument and applies
> that verb to y.
>
> Henry Rich
>
>
> On 2/9/2016 9:10 PM, Matthew Baulch wrote:
>
>> Thanks. I think this is what I was looking for.
>>
>> I was aware of '
here:
>
> https://github.com/tangentstorm/syndir/blob/master/graphdb.ijs
>
> Also an implementation of s-expressions (which you can stick
> in a ( 0 : 0 ) block.
>
> https://github.com/tangentstorm/syndir/blob/master/boxer.ijs
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Matth
c18 p18 c19 p19 c20 p20 c21 p21 c22 p22 c23 p23 c24 p24
c25 p25 c26 p26 c27 p27 c28 p28 c29 p29 c30 p30
)
I hope this helps,
--
Raul
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Matthew Baulch
wrote:
> Suppose I wish to construct a complex, non-regular deeply nested
structure:
> to model some inheren
Sorry. Correction in the second paragraph: 'function chains'. Though some
of the combinators can naturally be used in trains.
On 9 Feb 2016 8:59 pm, "Matthew Baulch" wrote:
> Suppose I wish to construct a complex, non-regular deeply nested
> structure: to model some in
Suppose I wish to construct a complex, non-regular deeply nested structure:
to model some inherently non-linear system. A natural approach (for me,
anyhow) is to construct a library of combinators, or a domain specific
language, with which to specify the (boxed) structure.
J rises easily to the ta
is up to the verb how to handle it.
>
> OTOH, when the rank of argument is larger, then the verb will
> never see the original argument because J interpreter has sliced
> it into k-cells which are what to be received by the verb.
> (actual implementation is more efficient, eg atomic verbs su
ginally specified?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Matthew Baulch
> wrote:
> > The 'x $ y' dyad, like you say, has rank 1 for x and _ for y. Examples
> > (1)-(3) have rank 0 arguments for x. The x arguments are array
3
> 1
>
> In other words there trial result doesn't have a shape, so you get one
> less dimension in your result than you had in x.
>
> As for your last example:
>
><"1 x=: 1 $ 0
> +-+
> |0|
> +-+
>$ <"1 x=: 1 $ 0
>
> ...so your
Original vocab says:
"The shape of x$y is x,siy where siy is the shape of an item of y."
NuVoc says (for x $ y):
"If y is an atom or a list, the shape of the result is x", and "the shape
of [the result of x$y] is always x,}.$y".
Let y =: 1 2 3 for all that follows.
(1)
x =: 1 0 1 $ 0
x$y h
re else.
> - Phrase of the moon.
>
> If anyone knows, I should know (I wrote the test script), and I don't
> know/remember.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Matthew Baulch
> wrote:
>
> > I've been reading the tests in the J engine source. Have
I've been reading the tests in the J engine source. Have learned quite a
bit while doing so! Anyhow, I've become perplexed by one particular line.
In the 'Boolean' section of the tests for 'x i. y' (test/gi.ijs), a random
table is constructed with
a=:1=?10 5$2
My question is, why is a=:?10 5$2
I imagine you'd need to convert to a character (as opposed to integer)
array to accomplish this. An integer's representation doesn't record any
leading zeroes.
Perhaps if you could describe the context, someone could provide a better
answer. Are you generating a report, perhaps?
On 1 Feb 2016 2:45
hat the "inner/outer" terms make for much
> easier understanding, but I also know that having to struggle to justify
> change is not a bad thing.
>
> I appreciate that the idea resonates with you and that makes it worth
> exploring.
>
> Cheers, bob
>
> > On
Correction:
"An argument must always have one outer cell." -- except in the degenerate
case. Similarly, "An argument has [zero or more] inner cells".
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Matthew Baulch
wrote:
> Sorry. Thanks for that correction. I quite like Robert's su
shape 'inner shape'. Any argument
must always have one outer cell. It has shape 'outer shape'.
Any thoughts?
The alternative to frame / cell shape being discussed is outer shape / cell
shape, not outer shape / inner shape. I don't believe anyone has used
"inner
Outer/inner makes perfect sense. Seems unlikely to lead anyone astray.
To play devil's advocate, it might seem silly but maybe a newbie could
guess that inner/outer shape relates to boxing. Is this paranoia? I don't
know.
The important question is: who is the terminology intended to serve? The
ans
this topic.
> >
> > Whenever an earnest user has confusion with the documentation, I want to
> > improve the documentation. Can you think where a timely word would have
> > helped?
> >
> > Henry Rich
> >
> >
> > On 1/15/2016 2:43 AM, Matthew Baulch wr
frame contains 0) and an empty frame (which simply means that the verb
> operates on a single cell).
>
> http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/EmptyArguments
>
> has more on this topic.
>
> Whenever an earnest user has confusion with the documentation, I want to
> improve th
he result cells
> and hence the result is not in question. With zero frames, there are no
> argument cells, so the system needs to do something extra (so that you
> don't have to). (x,"1 y appends vectors to vectors, but when y is i.0 4 it
> does not have any vectors.)
>
>
seems very deliberate—which I really
appreciate. It just seems that empty frames must serve a purpose. Trying to
work it out.
On 15 Jan 2016 4:21 pm, "bill lam" wrote:
> The J dictionary is always correct.
>
> Пт, 15 янв 2016, Matthew Baulch написал(а):
> > Fair enough, thoug
nguage. You need not worry anything else.
>
> http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dictb.htm
>
> Пт, 15 янв 2016, Matthew Baulch написал(а):
> > I assume the intended definition of 'frame', in relation to verb
> arguments,
> > is that given on
> >
>
I assume the intended definition of 'frame', in relation to verb arguments,
is that given on
http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/FramingFill
I'm just trying to understand verb/argument combinations with empty
frame--the most common case, I suppose.
From the wording "each argument is ... an
Thanks. That makes sense. I confess to not having needed extended precision
from J yet. I'm relieved to know it's implemented that way. Automatically
switching, like you say, would be expensive.
On 12 Jan 2016 4:46 am, "Raul Miller" wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at
Ignore my answer. This is more sensible.
On 11 Jan 2016 10:16 pm, "Ben Gorte - CITG" wrote:
> If I correctly understand your question, could it be you want:
>
>?~21
>
> It gives a random permutation of i.21 (and also works for much larger
> values)
>
> Ben
> __
A correction.
1+?(n-1) provides the index of the (element occupying) the second position,
2+?(n-2) for the third,
etc.
Sorry for any confusion.
On 11 Jan 2016 10:11 pm, "Matthew Baulch" wrote:
> 2^.!21 is greater than 64 and 2^.!20 is less, so I'm guessing roll is not
2^.!21 is greater than 64 and 2^.!20 is less, so I'm guessing roll is not
implemented with arbitrary precision arithmetic.
Until that happens, you could implement your own roll verb using J
primitives that do utilise extended precision. Maybe someone has already
written one? Otherwise, you could u
Looking at the source for dissect (addons/debug/dissect/dissect.ijs)
suggests a few things.
(1) dissect evaluates the input expression incrementally by following each
branch along the parse tree.
(2) it evaluates the expression a second time using the ". verb--reporting
an error if the two don't a
38 matches
Mail list logo
