Changing the form of an explicit definition is a terrible mistake. With
DD as defined you can use all the control words. If you changed the
internal representation of a DD you would lose that. What are you
trying to achieve?
You see the state table in w.c. The code that runs it is wordil(),
which is tuned to run as fast as the CPU can read from the state table.
That is a different state machine from (x ;: y). I am not interested in
creating an equivalent form for (x ;: y) but I agree that if you do so
it will be a good thing to have.
Henry Rich
On 10/28/2020 7:12 AM, Raul Miller wrote:
Looking into this just a bit further -- to implement a J model of the
direct definition lexer, I need the state table from w.c as a state
matrix for dyadic ;:
(I can't just use monadic ;: because I want to preserve whitespace. So
I think I should use the trace feature to generate the needed data
structure. (The kind of result I am wanting here from the sequential
machine is something that I had tried to ask for many years ago, but I
suspect I came across as incoherent. But I can at least try again,
now, through demonstration, show what I am try to express.))
I expect I can recreate the state table from the ;: dictionary page,
or maybe by hand translating the C implementation back into J. But if
that state table exists already, it would be great to have (and
probably also ought to go into nuvoc or somewhere in the wiki).
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
