A problem with boxed verbs is that they're rather difficult to fully describe -- they introduce the syntactic ambiguities of adverbs and conjunctions but of course with a different syntax. And, it's sort of open ended what happens in each of a wide variety of situations. (Which, in practice, means a wide variety of errors and/or crashes.)
It's not that there's anything impossible about having verb results be verbs. But most people here in the forums have trouble understanding J's existing parsing rules, even without this complexity. -- Raul On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 9:28 PM Elijah Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, Henry Rich wrote: > > > would make noun"_ problematic because boxed arguments might look like > > gerunds > > Permitting boxed verbs (suggested elsewhere) would solve this problem, > more-or-less. > > > On 12/27/2021 10:01 AM, Raul Miller wrote: > >> Ok, that makes sense. > >> > >> Also, your statement: > >> > >>> u"n is defined to do two things: partitioning and assigning a rank > >>> for combining purposes. > >> is key, here, I think. > >> > >> Would we lose any important identities if the partitioning for cyclic > >> gerunds were one rank lower than the rank for combining purposes? > >> > >> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
