Of course.

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018, 6:49 PM bill lam <[email protected]> wrote:

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

Reply via email to