2. I agree completely, and was planning to add this at some point after
DD has been finalized.
If you want to get into modifying the JE, talk to Eric. Representations
are something I don't know very well - all I know is summarized in the
comments I have added - so we would be on equal footing.
Henry Rich
On 10/26/2020 9:05 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
There are two things I would like to see for direct definition which
are not currently implemented. I do not know if these have any
roadblocks.( If they do have roadblocks, I would like to understand
these blocking issues.)
[1] Syntax highlighting. Currently, jqt uses a different color for
{{ than for }} in multiline direct definitions. (jhs does not have
this issue.)
[2] Representation. I would very much like a variant on 5!:5 which
produces a direct definition form which is analogous to linear
representation except that it uses direct definition rather than
explicit definition. (Name use conflicts could be handled by replacing
n=. with 'n'=. and replacing other uses of n with ('n'~), and of
course the same for other reserved names.)
My primary use of this representation would be in J's default display (9!:3).
If you think I should tackle these myself, I guess I can try (though I
suspect I would goof up on my first attempt, and I do not know where
jqt's syntax highlighting code is located).
Thanks,
--
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
