J has limited resources, I think it is better to prioritize implementation of bit boolean over quaternions. Just my 2 cents.
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018, 8:41 AM Don Guinn <[email protected] wrote: > Thank you for your comments. What I did was strictly replace verbs with a > named verb with the same rank as the primitive and also defined an inverse > making them functionally equivalent. So modifiers treat them just like the > primitive, except for fit (!.) and any optimization. All rules for tacit > and modifiers still apply. I tested those statements you mentioned and they > seem to work properly. Since they are named verbs, including (*), J cannot > know that it is supposed to be multiplication or whatever. So optimization > you mentioned in J is not done. And it is not necessary to worry about > tacit and other modifier considerations. > > Yes, if optimization is done before the type of noun is encountered, > particularly multiplication, then it would be a real problem. > > I guess that for now at least, the best approach for me is to name the > verbs and use them instead of the primitives. It is not hard to enter a > statement, replace the primitive verbs with the appropriate named verbs, > then execute the modified statement. And in some other possible things to > look into may have even more restrictions than quaternions, where even > addition may not communicate. > > But it is nice to be able to enter regular J statements and have them > support quaternions. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
