Hi Oleg,
You state:
> We need to be careful about using the term "tacit" appropriately. Does it
> only mean the use of "@", and S thus attempts to replace it with " "?
> However tacit is much more than that: the whole repertoire of
> adverbs and conjunctions, and the forks and hooks--that is tacit.
> The order of complexity can hardly be denied. One has to grasp the total
> entirety of tacit programming in J. It is not just about one conjunction
> "@",
> which has its proper place and meaning and cannot be just thrown away.
> How does S represent the rank difference between "@" and "@:" ?
> With "@" being space, how is it going to be related with the other
> facets of function composition "&", "&.", "&:" and "&.:" ?
As I noted in the reply I recently made to Ric, I am interpreting
tacit J to mean what is defined in the Primer: "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 included my revised tacit expression: (%:(+/*:] -(+/)%#)%<:#)
and showed, I believe, that it fulfilled the requirements of this
definition for tacit programming.
If :
* I can convert any explicit J expression to my revised tacit J.
* My revised tacit J fulfills the requirements defined for a tacit J.
* I can convert this revised tacit J back to the explicit J expression.
Then I must have a form of tacit J.
When I did Euclidean Geometry many years ago, we used to
say: Q.E.D.
All due to Ric !!!
Don
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
