[Jprogramming] modifiers

[Jose Mario Quintana]

> Of course the fact that m at .n allows certain forms does not imply that
> m at .v would support similar forms.

Of course.

> I don't see anything to object to here.

Great!  This means tacit adverbs functioning as parameterized macros are,
or might be eventually, legitimized.
>                                          There are gerunds and adverbs,
> producing trains that evaluate properly.

Right, the trains evaluate properly; even though the list (;:'@:-"')
includes ARs of conjunctions (it is not my intention at all to argue with a
/mufti/ of J, I am just accentuating).

> By The Wise I mean the /ulama/ of J (neminem nominabo, genus hominum
> significasse contentus)  You know who you are.

Train (`:6) can also evaluate properly forms associated with the
corresponding agenda (m at .n) evaluation, mutatis mutandis; exempli gratia,

   ((<'"') ,~ (<;:'u@:v-v@:u'))
┌─────────────────┬─┐
│┌─┬──┬─┬─┬─┬──┬─┐│"│
││u│@:│v│-│v│@:│u││ │
│└─┴──┴─┴─┴─┴──┴─┘│ │
└─────────────────┴─┘

   ((<'"') ,~ (<;:'u@:v-v@:u')) (`:6)
(u@:v - v@:u)"

Do the /ulama/ of J (et alli) disapprove?

By the way, some boxed representations belong to this class of forms,

   t=. (u@:v - v@:u)"

   (5!:2<'t')
┌─────────────────────┬─┐
│┌────────┬─┬────────┐│"│
││┌─┬──┬─┐│-│┌─┬──┬─┐││ │
│││u│@:│v││ ││v│@:│u│││ │
││└─┴──┴─┘│ │└─┴──┴─┘││ │
│└────────┴─┴────────┘│ │
└─────────────────────┴─┘
   (5!:2<'t') (`:6)
(u@:v - v@:u)"

but not all of them,

   t=. "1

   (5!:2<'t')
┌─┬─┐
│"│1│
└─┴─┘

   (5!:2<'t') (`:6)
|domain error
|   (5!:2<'t')    (`:6)

The issue here is the missing (in the evaluation sense) AR of 1,

   (<,'"'),<<(,'0');1
┌─┬───────┐
│"│┌─────┐│
│ ││┌─┬─┐││
│ │││0│1│││
│ ││└─┴─┘││
│ │└─────┘│
└─┴───────┘
   ((<,'"'),<<(,'0');1) (`:6)
"1


On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:49 PM Henry Rich <henryhrich at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't see anything to object to here.  There are gerunds and adverbs,
> producing trains that evaluate properly.
>
>
> By The Wise I mean the /ulama/ of J (neminem nominabo, genus hominum
> significasse contentus)  You know who you are.
>
> Henry Rich
>
> On 3/10/2020 11:34 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
> >> I don't think it's illegal.  The spec (Ye Dic, here) is incomplete.  It
> > That is good to know.
> >
> >> I don't see anything bad coming from executing a train containing
> >> non-verbs; so I would vote to expand the spec to include all trains.
> > I do not see anything bag coming either, on the contrary.
> >
> >> There would need to be discussion among The Wise before any such
change.
> > May I offer some food for thought to The Wise?
> >
> > I would expect that whatever is decided regarding the legality in J
about
> > the train's (`:6) arguments would, or should, affect its capable
relative,
> > agenda (@.), specifically the m at .n form; for instance, do The Wise, or
you,
> > in particular, think that the following sentences, supported by j901,
are
> > legal or illegal in J?
> >
> >     a=. (`(;:'@:-"'))(@.(4 ;~ (<0 2 1 3 1 2 0)))
> >
> >     u`v a
> > (u@:v - v@:u)"
> >
> >     _1 *:`(+/) a i. 2 3 4
> >    64  118  184  262
> > 1504 1702 1912 2134
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:09 AM Henry Rich <henryhrich at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> I don't think it's illegal.  The spec (Ye Dic, here) is incomplete.  It
> >> says what will be done if there is a verb train but is silent about
> >> other trains.
> >>
> >> What the implementation does is accept any train and evaluate it.
> >> Thinking about it I don't see anything else you could do with a train;
&
> >> I don't see anything bad coming from executing a train containing
> >> non-verbs; so I would vote to expand the spec to include all trains.
> >>
> >> There would need to be discussion among The Wise before any such
change.
> >>
> >> Henry Rich
> >>
> >> On 3/9/2020 11:36 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
> >>> Henry wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ye Dic mentions only verb trains under `: .
> >>> Therefore, the sentence ((<,'"') ` (an 1) (`:6)) is illegal in J
> > because "1
> >>> is not a train of verbs (even if it is supported by j).  Correct?
(This
> > is
> >>> not a rhetorical question.)
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> >> https://www.avg.com
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm