Erling,
I seem to be missing something here, but it seems to me that the strawman is
that in the case of using - as the repeated monadic verb, we are creating
something that is identical to the verb ] and by choosing - as your repeated
verb you have created an example that would be most easily replaced by ]
(13 : '-(-(-(-(y))))' )
[: - [: - [: - -
(] -: (13 : '-(-(-(-(y))))' ))i. 100000000
1
timespacex '(13 :''-(-(-(-(y))))'' )i. 100000000'
2.82372 3.22123e9
timespacex '] i. 100000000'
0.413439 1.07374e9
If you chose +: as your repeated verb then that would be equivalent to 16 * ]
(13 : '+:(+:(+:(+:(y))))' )
[: +: [: +: [: +: +:
timespacex '(16 * ]) i. 100000000'
1.37372 2.14749e9
timespacex '13 : ''+:(+:(+:(+:(y))))'' i. 100000000'
4.04876 3.22123e9
There may be other choices that you have that are not equivalent to a simpler,
quicker solution.
Your original point from your post was that:
"People tend to avoid writing expressions like [: – [: – [: – [: – ] to execute
a number of monadic verbs in sequence, probably because it reveals that the
notation is not good. Instead they tend to write something like this -&-@- – ]
and pretend that they use a cool language."
It seems to me that using an example (-&-@- – ]) that would not be used by most
J programmers is the strawman. I think your argument is much stronger if you
can come up with verbs that cannot be expressed in equivalents that are clearer
and quicker.
By the way, I really appreciate the work that you have done in pushing these
boundaries.
Cheers, bob
> On Aug 6, 2016, at 2:29 PM, Erling Hellenäs <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ts'(13 :''-(-(-(-(y))))'' )i. 100000000'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
