[Jprogramming] Tacit Expressions with Explicit J Syntax

[Erling Hellenäs]

Hi all !

If there is an interest in implementing this, someone else has to fill 
in the details.

The easiest way to get this to a working implementation might be to 
include the tacit expressions we have now in the new tacit-v 
expressions, so that they could be used if the programmer finds a reason.

Then there is a question of if the present tacit J expressions might 
fall into oblivion and we in the future might want to take them away. 
How that process would be handled in the best way.

See comments below.

Cheers,

Erling Hellenäs

Den 2017-09-26 kl. 14:35, skrev Raul Miller:
> I have a big problem with this: I have no idea what you think you are saying.
>
> Taken literally, it looks like a request to merge
> https://github.com/andrimne/JWithATwist/blob/master/JWithATwist/Parser.fs
> (and some other parts of that repo) into J. But I do not know what
> problems this would solve that would justify this kind of massive
> change to the language.
 From my request: "My proposal is not that the tacit-v expressions 
should be like JWithATwist, but that they should be like explicit J, 
with the differences mentioned above and some differences mentioned below."
>
> In my mind, "J's syntax" means the grammatical rules which a computer
> follows when evaluating sentences. Specifically, the rules laid out at
> http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dicte.htm
>
> Clearly, your change would require rewriting those rules in some
> fashion, and you seem to agree. Your sentence "It should not be
> possible to have tacit-t expressions within tacit-v expressions."
> suggests that those rules would be abandoned when running your code
> instead.
>
> But what are your new rules?
>
> J already struggles with documentation issues: We do need examples to
> supplement more formal documentation. But that does not mean that
> examples without that more formal documentation is going to make
> anything easier to understand.
>
> Meanwhile, your "it's not clear" clauses in this proposal, suggest
> that you have not really thought through what kind of syntax rules you
> are proposing.
>
> It's like you do not understand what J's syntax is.
>
> How would the dictionary have to change, to document the changes you
> are proposing?
>
> Or, if this is not really about J programming (and it might not be),
> perhaps this kind of thing really belongs in the chat forum?
It's a proposal for a change of the J interpreter, which might be 
accepted and implemented or not. In full or in part.
>
> Thanks,
>