On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Don Watson <[email protected]> wrote: > elegant. If it wasn't elegant, something was wrong. Tacit J is about > Mathematics and it isn't elegant, so I set out to find something that was
I think tacit J can be quite elegant. The classic (+/ % #) for example, is an elegant expression of arithmetic mean. And, if I might touch on a few other points: > 1)Why: "[" and "]" in effect jump over intervening code to reach the > right argument or left argument. It is important to know how > far to jump in the J expression - the J expression can be > broader than the tacit expression. Actually.. the arguments were already "there". What [ and ] offer is the ability to extract their left or right argument unchanged. > 2)Why: For implicit definition, tacit S will consist only of verbs, so > that the nouns x and y must be removed. The system has > to know where they came from at execution time. Tacit J expressions can include nouns, parenthesis, adverbs and/or conjunctions. None of these are verbs, though obviously they may be used in the construction of verbs. > What: Markers must be put in the place from which they came. > How: Use "[" as a marker for x and "]" as a marker for y. At > execution time, the implicit rules bring an x and a y to the > right of these verbs. This statement is extremely confusing, in my opinion. It might seem simple but it is ambiguous. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
