[Jprogramming] RE: [Jgeneral] Design choice -HooksandForksintacit code

[Randy MacDonald]

My "feelings" aside, I find the following:
   F =: -
   G =: +
   (F + G) 8 9 10
0 0 0
   (F+G)8 9 10 NB. [0]
0 0 0
   ((F])+G])8 9 10 NB. [1]
_8 _9 _10

NB. Not only is [1] more complex than [0], it is different.

Aside, I wonder where hooks and forks occur in non-tacit code. My thought
was that hooks and forks were the basis for tacit code.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|\/| Randy A MacDonald             | you can't pay for it,
|/\| ramacd at nbnet.nb.ca            |       even if you want to.
BSc(Math) UNBF'83 Sapere Aude      | APL: If you can say it, it's done..
Natural Born APL'er                | Demo website: http://142.166.105.166/
----------------------------------------------------(INTP)----{ gnat }-

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erling Hellenäs" <erling.hellenas at runbox.com>
To: "'Programming forum'" <programming at jsoftware.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM
Subject: RE: [Jprogramming] RE: [Jgeneral] Design
choice -HooksandForksintacit code


> Hi all !
>
> Comment to Raul:
>
> Another possible way to do this would be:
>
>  ((F ]) + G]) 8 9 10
>
> ..if the same way of execution as in non-tacit J was used in tacit
> expressions. We could then get rid of a lot of Caps and Bonds and Atops
and
> Ats. We wouldn't have to count verbs from right to left to find out the
> arguments of a certain verb. Inserting something somewhere wouldn't get
the
> whole chain out of sync.
>
> Misunderstand me right - this is how I feel about this now, but my basic
> assumption is that I have something to learn here.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Erling Hellenäs
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm