You could use ` for your ].. and cfork for your [..
9!:3]6
* (& ` : cfork @) #
(*&#) (* :#) (*@#)
But definitely, this is cleaner:
cfork=:{{
m ` v `:6
}}
Though, of course, this would be even nicer if we had some useful
example for such a conjunction-constructed-forks.
Take care,
--
Raul
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 6:09 PM Elijah Stone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2021, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > J's conjunctions can accept two verb arguments and create a single
> > result. A fork contains three verbs. So I think that fork construction
> > using conjunctions must happen "in stages", with some sort of
> > intermediate result to "bridge the gap"
>
> I agree!
>
> This is what I was trying to do with left and right fork, with the stages
> being augmentation of the left and right tines (respectively) of some new
> fork. Only I didn't think it through.
>
>
> > That said, a conjunction which combines two verbs to create a hook and
> > another conjunction which takes a verb and a hook and creates the
> > analogous fork sound plausibly interesting.
>
> I find this problematic, because the second conjunction is not general.
> Its only purpose is to create forks from hooks. (Either that, or it
> behaves differently for hooks and non-hooks, in which case what if you
> want to apply the non-hook behaviour to a hook?)
>
>
> > +/`% cfork #
> > +/ % #
> > +/`% cfork # 1 2 3
> > 2
>
> If you have already accepted gerunds, why not go all the way? +/`%`# `: 6
>
> (And the conjunction C0`C1`C2`:6.)
>
> -E
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
