Hi everyone,
I can't believe I have been as thick as I have been. I was blinded by
the whole structure of tacit J. Two things have drastically made me see the
light - Ric talking about converting tacit back to explicit and actually
reading the definition of tacit J. Tell me what's wrong with the following:
Here is an explicit J expression to find a standard deviation:
%:(+/*:y -(+/y)%#y)%<:#y
To turn it into a revised form of tacit J, replace all the "y"s with "]" and
enclose in parentheses: (%:(+/*:] -(+/])%#])%<:#])
To convert back to explicit J, replace all the "]"s with "y"s and take away
the extra parentheses: %:(+/*:y -(+/y)%#y)%<:#y
Now make certain that the revised tacit J fits the definition: "In a
tacit definition the arguments are not named and do not appear
explicitly in the definition. The arguments are referred to implicitly
by the syntactic requirements of the definition."
I think it fits. There are no named arguments and it is implicitly told
where to put the "y"s when we go back to explicit. For a left argument, the
"[" replaces x. Where's the need for conjunctions?
Don
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
