On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Don Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have a example from Skip Cave, which he tells me is tacit form. Skip
> says:
>
> "Here's the tacit phrase expanded fully, with arguments and the result:
> (y = i. 21 x = 3)
>
> 3 (<:@[ <.[ <.@(] * [ % [: >./ ]) (- <./)@]) i. 21
> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 "
>
> Is Skip wrong then and not giving me a tacit form?
In this example, [ and ] are verbs. For example,
consider (- ./)@]
The @ conjunction currently requires a verb on its
right.
(- ./)@9
|syntax error
So if [ and ] were exact replacements for x and y,
Skip's example would be syntactically invalid.
I do not know if this will help, but here's an example
of something that would change (but still "work") if ]
were an exact replacement for y:
'ab' ]"0 1 i. 2 2
0 1
2 3
y=:i.2 2
'ab' y"0 1 i. 2 2
0 1
2 3
0 1
2 3
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
