> Where's the need for conjunctions? Do you feel that just conjunctions are unnecessary or both conjunctions and adverbs are unnecessary?
----- Original Message ----- From: Don Watson <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:47 Subject: Re: [Jchat] Language S To: Chat forum <[email protected]> > 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 > actuallyreading 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? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
