I wrote:
>I used the Jx extensions Cloak (?:) and wl ( 104!:1) out of
convenience rather than necessity to show that the foreign verb extension
(104!:8) ...
> ... one can reproduce the behavior using an official interpreter (merely
by redefining the extensions involved). For example,
>
I guess my point - which relates to back to our use of the term
"Dictionary" to refer to the language reference - is that it is difficult
to reason about the meaning of a sentence when you do not know what some of
the words in that sentence mean.
For example, here:
('v0 a1 c2 N3' k (< o (Cloak
I used the Jx extensions Cloak (?:) and wl ( 104!:1) out of convenience
rather than necessity to show that the foreign verb extension (104!:8) not
only can take arguments that it was not supposed to take but also produce
results that make sense (to me, anyway) just as several official primitives
an
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> Fantastically (or horridly, depending on one's point of view), the verb
> (104!:8) can effortlessly make assignments that were never envisioned,
>
>
>('v0 a1 c2 N3' k (< o (?: <'wl') ;. _1)) '`^&-:`@:>`^:`0 1 2'
?:
|spelling er
and in its original
form at the bottom) ...
> [Jprogramming] copula
> Dan Bron j at bron.us
> Wed Jun 11 13:19:29 UTC 2014
Arguably point-free (or pointless, depending on one's point of view)
programming in J must not
use pro-words; that is, point-free programs in J are fixed tacit pr
Before }:: makes sense, boxed memory management would need to be a lot more
efficient.
But even higher priority than that are various things that can cause J to
crash.
--
Raul
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Dan Bron wrote:
> I don't think it's necessary to rebuild the atomic rep of the ve
I don't think it's necessary to rebuild the atomic rep of the verb. You could
just compose the function directly.
Nevertheless, it does remind me of the absence of }:: in the language, and I
wonder why it was never implemented.
Performance questions aside, the definition of the adverb should
eans no default, and
so passed-in null values stay null (for that parameter) and so the function can
decide from there.
- Original Message -
From: Dan Bron
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2014 2:05:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] copula -- function paramet
I wrote:
> [2] Your approach of redefining f is neat, though rather than using n~ ::
> ] y to
>extract the previous value (which won't work in 100% of cases), you
> might
>consider (< ('';1;0) {:: 5!:1 On Jun 14, 2014, at 2:05 PM, Dan Bron wrote:
>
> Pascal wrote:
>> Your goals seem
Pascal wrote:
> Your goals seem to have been to make a pretty calling convention
To be honest with you, I can no longer remember what goals I had in mind
when I wrote that code, or even if I had meaningful goals at all. I have
a vague recollection of a newcomer to the Forums who (having a backg
erb
lex =: 2 : 0
a =. n~ :: ] y
(n) =: u(a&)
a
)
details here:
http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/PascalJasmin/nonads%20revisited
- Original Message -
From: Dan Bron
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:32:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] copula
se.
- Original Message -
From: Dan Bron
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:32:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] copula -- function parameters for J
Pascal wrote:
> I wrote something else cool instead:
>
> Parsing function parameters outside of
Pascal wrote:
> I wrote something else cool instead:
>
> Parsing function parameters outside of the function:
> last section at:
> http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/PascalJasmin/J%20tricks%20with%20assign
I haven't read that whole page yet, but if you're interested in silly
tricks with assign, mayb
fn
'fn2' 1 fn ':';'(x) =: m : y';'1'
1
'fn' 1 fn2 ':';'(x) =: m : y';'1'
1
fn
1 : 0
:
(x) =: m : y
1
)
- Original Message -
From: Raul Miller
To: Programming forum
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday,
arens)
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Dan Bron
> To: programm...@jsoftware.com
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:54:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] copula
>
> Yeah, that's the standard approach.
>
> In general, unlike explicit code, taci
hand side as the entire expression instead
of the "greedy right" conjunction behaviour? (so as to avoid parens)
- Original Message -
From: Dan Bron
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:54:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] copula
Yeah, that'
Here are some issues:
1) You get a free set of parenthesis to the right of the copula - this even
constrains the use of adverbs and conjunctions. Verbs don't do that.
b=: "1
c=: +/ .* &
2) In interactive contexts, you do not get a display if the final operation
was a copula. The value is s
--- Original Message ---
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] copula
From: "'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming"
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 06:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
To: "programm...@jsoftware.com"
> it's possible to emulate them as used-defined utilities (
a
3
- Original Message -
From: Dan Bron
To: "programm...@jsoftware.com"
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:19:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] copula
If copulas were verbs, what would happen here?
count=:77
msg=:'count'
msg=:msg,': '
If copulas were verbs, what would happen here?
count=:77
msg=:'count'
msg=:msg,': ',":count
Or, better yet:
count=: count +1
Similar remarks apply to the question of whether copulae should be adverbs or
conjunctions. In short: in order to see a /name/ on the left, as opposed to a
I'd like to know the reasoning that copula are not verbs please.
B
|value error: B
(=:~ ('A B C ' {.~ +:@#))i.2
|syntax error
| (=:~('A B C '{.~+:@#))i.2
assign=: 4 :'EMPTY [ (x)=: y'
(assign~ ('A B C ' {.~ +:@#))i.2
B
1
-
21 matches
Mail list logo
