> Really now: isn't that for J experts only? No – and yes. ++ No because I think that a verb definition that reads explicit but acts tacit has enormous appeal for a J learner. ++ Yes because when I played around with it, it defied all my reasonable (??) attempts to generalize it. So it's stuff for experts only: far more expert experts than me.
There is a sizeable suppressed need for a reliable tool doing explicit <--> tacit. Currently all we offer is (13 :) and tte, both of which usually bail out like Bugs Bunny's autopilot, plus a ragbag of tricks and tips of the how-to-lose-weight-and be-rich-and-happy kind. How about a "dissect" for verbs instead of nouns? Learners want science (or at least technology) – and we give them alchemy (or at least cookery). If I had a black chip to gamble on helping J shake off its propeller-headed image, here's the square I'd plonk it down on. End of rant. (I'm working on that post for Chat.) Ian On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 03:41, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > Good point. > > I agree that tacit programming is best left as an advanced topic. > > What we have here is an explicit adverb that produces a desired verb > result. Most users wouldn't want it - they would want a verb. They can > do that easily enough. > > Raul has shown an elegant way to create an adverb that is readable as an > explicit entity but performs like a tacit entity. Really now: isn't > that for J experts only? > > Henry Rich > > On 11/22/2021 8:21 PM, Ian Clark wrote: > >> I like that title. > > I like it too – as the title of an essay communicated between J experts > > which tersely sums up its contents. > > But, as the Japanese say: I'm about to utter a rude thing… > > > > I think the very word "tacit" should be banned from all material likely > to > > be viewed by J newcomers. > > Specifically, everything in NuVoc above the subheading: "More > Information". > > > > There are two uses of the word "tacit" which I'd wholeheartedly endorse: > > ++ J promotes itself tacitly. > > ++ There is tacit acceptance of J's status as Information Technology's > > number one mystery religion. > > > > I guess I'm in the minority over this issue: a minority of one. I'm going > > over to Chat to expand on my views on the matter. > > > > On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 15:11, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I like that title. > >> > >> Henry Rich > >> > >> On 11/22/2021 8:56 AM, Raul Miller wrote: > >>> Hmm... > >>> > >>> One issue here is that the specific example in this thread was > >>> "pretty" because of two arbitrary obstacles: > >>> > >>> (1) email line wrapping, and > >>> > >>> (2) it was an ad-hoc cd call with a large cd signature. > >>> > >>> In other words, there's a niche for this kind of thing, but outside of > >>> email exchanges there's less pressure to use this technique. And, it's > >>> worth thinking about alternative examples (like maybe tacit > >>> expressions which contain an agenda with a large gerund). > >>> > >>> So, anyways, ... I've been trying to come up with some better examples > >>> > >>> But turning this into a wiki page raises another issue: what would be > >>> a good name for that wiki page? Would "Tacit Valued Explicit > >>> Definitions" be sufficiently evocative? > >>> > >>> 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 > > > -- > 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
