Well, if I'd be using it a lot, I'd write a not-so-beautiful thing
(which probably other people are going to phrase more eloquently) to make
the other code look better.
For instance:
NB. lambda-ifying adverb:
L =: 1 : '3 : (( [: (( ''=.y'' ,~ ''''''''&([,,~) )&.>@{. , {:) < ;. _1 )
m)'
Usage:
times =: '|a b|a*b' L
plus =: '$x y$x+y' L NB. any separator you fancy (but space)
plus 1 2
3
times 3 4
12
2015-02-02 10:39 GMT+01:00 alexgian <[email protected]>:
> > On a related note, lambda syntax is not really simple.
> > Consider:
> > ((lambda (x y) (+ x y)) 2 3)
>
> Well, that's *one* form of lambda syntax, viz. the Scheme variant
>
> In Haskell you'd write
> \x y -> x+y
>
> Hardly rocket science. But I think the point is that that however
> awkwardly you may choose to codify it, lambda is brilliant in its
> simplicity and accessibility of understanding. Static scoping is a
> no-brainer for managing complexity.
>
> I agree that the inability of abstracting J more than two levels (as
> already mentioned) is a serious PITA, and probably the most inexplicably
> klutzy piece of work in an otherwise so elegant system... I mean, needing
> to combine tacits inside explicits, and gawdknows what other work-arounds!
> Really? We might have got used to it, but I doubt that many in the real
> world would. But, of course, I could be wrong....
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
