That's good advice, but not for raw beginners. You know your audience.
Henry Rich
On 8/27/2019 12:46 PM, Arnab Chakraborty wrote:
Dear all,
Thanks for the comments. I shall update the tutorial accordingly. My love
for =. stems from an advice that I got from a C instructor: Always declare
v
Dear all,
Thanks for the comments. I shall update the tutorial accordingly. My love
for =. stems from an advice that I got from a C instructor: Always declare
variables in the smallest scope possible.
Of course, I am not supposed to mix C philosophy with J philosophy...
Thanks and regards,
Ar
Teaching raw beginners, I found it much easier to use =: everywhere.
When the time comes the savvy ones will see the value in =. .
Henry Rich
On 8/26/2019 11:44 AM, Raul Miller wrote:
I have a couple comments.
Well.. ok, there are a variety of alternate phrasings of these
concepts. But those
orial
> >
> > which I presume still illustrates the point.
> >
> > Thank you, Dave
> >
> >
> > On 8/25/19 8:00 AM, programming-requ...@forums.jsoftwnaare.com wrote:
> > > Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 12:24:18 -0400
> > > From: Henry Rich
> > >
ich I presume still illustrates the point.
>
> Thank you, Dave
>
>
> On 8/25/19 8:00 AM, programming-requ...@forums.jsoftwnaare.com wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 12:24:18 -0400
> > From: Henry Rich
> > To:programm...@jsoftware.com
> > Subject: Re: [J
On 8/25/19 8:00 AM, programming-requ...@forums.jsoftwnaare.com wrote:
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 12:24:18 -0400
From: Henry Rich
To:programm...@jsoftware.com
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Creating adverb
Message-ID:<2ca01562-092d-e35d-cad8-53185104e...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ut
Full detail at https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/com
for this, Details Note 11.
Henry Rich
On 8/24/2019 12:19 PM, Arnab Chakraborty wrote:
Thanks a lot. It was kind of hard to guess that. But now it's clear.
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019, 20:41 bill lam, wrote:
Just as what Henry said, u mu
Thanks a lot. It was kind of hard to guess that. But now it's clear.
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019, 20:41 bill lam, wrote:
> Just as what Henry said, u must be there for x y to have usual meaning. u
> can do nothing. try
>
> f =: adverb define
> u
>y
> :
> u
> x
> )
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019, 10:07
Just as what Henry said, u must be there for x y to have usual meaning. u
can do nothing. try
f =: adverb define
u
y
:
u
x
)
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019, 10:07 PM Arnab Chakraborty wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I cannot understand the behavior of the following code that I have written:
>
> f =: adverb defin
If the adverb does not refer to u, x is assumed to mean u (for
compatibility with early versions).
It is rare to have an adverb that does not depend on u . Here you could
have written
f =: adverb : '['
Henry Rich
On 8/24/2019 10:07 AM, Arnab Chakraborty wrote:
Hi,
I cannot understand the
Hi,
I cannot understand the behavior of the following code that I have written:
f =: adverb define
y
:
x
)
I expected this adverb to convert any verb to one that as a monad is same
as identity function, and as a dyad is just [
It produces syntax error when called like
(sin f) 1
or
2 (+
11 matches
Mail list logo
