I, for one, love 0. However, cap does something: "[: signals error on any
argument." Yet, the behavior of a fork is exceptional when a cap is at the
beginning, then the middle verb acts monadically instead of dyadically. It is
this apparent “spooky action at a distance” that bothers some functional
programmers.
The controversy is neverending, some prefer to avoid @, some [:, and others
none.
________________________________________
From: programming-boun...@jsoftware.com [programming-boun...@jsoftware.com] On
Behalf Of Kip Murray [k...@math.uh.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:22 PM
To: Programming forum
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] FW: A simple function
Here is my attempt to make [: lovable. You love 0, don’t you?
g When f is [: in the diagram at left
/ \ the left branch disappears and you
f h get the diagram below: “I do nothing”
| | [: is like “I am nothing” 0 .
y y
g
\
h
|
y
g Also here when f is [: the left
/ \ branch disappears and you get
f h the diagram below: “I do nothing”
/ \ / \ [: is like “I am nothing” 0 .
x y x y
g
\
h
/ \
x y
Diagrams adapted from Dictionary Section II F. Trains
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Tracy Harms<kalei...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>> Also, I do see ways in which trains are more simple than modifier phrases.
>> I think this simplicity is significantly *reduced* by the incorporation of
>> Cap, whereas @ can be fruitfully associated with function composition as
>> documented in uncounted texts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
