Don, In respons to: > > "I do not understand your continued emphasis on monadic verbs in this > discussion."
You wrote: > This is how I view it. I will take a very simple explicit J expression > with only dyadic verbs, constants and a right argument: > > 3+2-7*5^y > > You can break this up as follows: > > 3+ 2- 7* 5^ y > M M M M > > I have placed an M under each constant followed by dyadic verb, because > together they are the equivalent of a monadic verb. Tacit J does exactly > this with the expressions: 3&+, 2&-, 7&*, and 5&^. That is why I am > looking at any arithmetic or language with the right to left rule as a > stream of monadic verb expressions. In the revised tacit J that I am > proposing, I am also dealing with a right to left rule; so I also see a > stream of monadic verb expressions in my tacit J. If I turn the explicit J > into revised tacit programming, I have: > > Verb=: 3+ 2- 7* 5^ > M M M M > > So my new verb is a stream of monadic phrases. > > That's the trunk I'm looking at. This has clarified one aspect of your approach very well. By permitting a noun as the left argument of a fork this case is very simply handled within the train structure. It does not need any transform to a monadic verb. However from the user perspective the ability to have a function determine what value will be placed in the left argument is really important. if you have not seen it you might find Donald McIntyres piece on forks a valuable piece of background reading. See http://www.dbmcintyre.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index_f/menu_f/j_f/apl95.pdf The blog responses on http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1919 are also germane to your concerns since they give comments from several who have tried J and given up. Donald's paper may provide some of the explanations you have wondered about. For simplicity I only comment further on a late sentence in your message > > The ([) is perhaps a patch in my tacit programming, because the right > to > left rule - all basic monadic verb expressions - needs a parenthesis to > the > left > of a verb to tell it is dyadic since the noun has been taken out. > I think one big difference between us is that I am not concerned about nouns being taken out but verbs. The J 'default' of verbs being dyadic means the a focus on monadic verbs defeats many of its strengths. Best of luck with your further investigations. Fraser ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
