Hmm... actually, this might mean something new -- this approach
suggests delving into the atomic rep, finding the explicit definitions
and converting them to dd.
But that implies a less explicit ar which can directly represent a
direct definition. So, for example, making a '{{' token which has a
modifier indicating type (for example )a or )v or whatever), followed
by the direct definition text. Probably followed by an inert '}}'
token to make the ddrep implementation simpler...
I would definitely want Eric to weigh in on a design change that hits
the system this deeply.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:44 PM Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The lrep code does look a bit complicated.
>
> Probably the right place to start here would be to take the j model
> for lrep (at https://www.jsoftware.com/ioj/iojRep.htm) and build a j
> model for ddrep.
>
> I'll see if I can figure that out, but I don't know how long it'll
> take me to digest the issues.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 10:36 PM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
