Hi Raul,
You stated:
It's in quotes because we do not want to use the expression right
now, we want to define a new verb which uses the expression.
Computers do not understand our intentions so we must spell
out everything precisely.
Of course, but that's not the point I was making.
You stated:
For this to work consistently, [ and ] would have to be names
rather than verbs. Which means that this would not be a tacit
definition. In simple cases, this will work with J's existing
rules, but in the general case things are not so simple.
(Because, computers need everything specified unambiguously.)
To my knowledge, I have already stated that it is not a tacit.
I stated:
> tacit J. For example, take the expression:
>
> x f...@g y <-> f (x g y)
>
> that you have given above. In explicit J this is still: f (x g y)
> and could be expressed in a right to left implicit form as: f ([ g ])
You stated:
Again, for this to work, [ and ] have to be names and this has
to be an explicit expression and not a tacit expression.
That's why I used the workmight - it couldn't be at present.
Don
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
