Well, you asked. So here's my thoughts: 1) I am not sure what your suggestion would mean for something like (1 + (: (u x)+u y ) 2).
2) Also: the "existing syntax for non-tacit verbs" has already already been extended above and beyond the syntax for J sentences. 3) And multi-line blocks are already an extension above and beyond the syntax for J sentences. 4) Or rather, I suspect that your suggestion would mean a lack of modularity in the underlying parser implementation, where the sentence parser needs to be extended to handle multi-line non-sentence constructs. 5) Also: saving a single character in explicit definitions doesn't seem like a big win. 6) J also contains the wd sub-language, which also uses a different syntax. I hope this helps, -- Raul On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 7:04 PM Elijah Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > > The addition of DD for verbs is a welcome one. I have a suggestion > regarding the syntax, however. The use of {{ }} to delimit a DD verb > seems to mirror APL, but it overloads existing syntax in j. The previous > form, (. )., was better in this regard, but I have an alternate proposal. > > Use (: to open a DD, and plain ) to close it. Advantages: > > - shorter > > - : matches the existing syntax for non-tacit verbs (3 : et al) > > - suggests a syntax for ambivalent verbs (:monadic form:dyadic form) > which also matches the existing non-tacit syntax > > - suggests a syntax for DD adverbs and conjunctions, perhaps with (. ) > > (Added bonus: the leading : matches expression syntax in k9.) > > Thoughts? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
