I wasn't clear. I don't want to change the dictionary. I want to suggest a use for the word "type" in the context of J. "Leave it at that" was intended to mean, do not give "type" a broader meaning in the context of J.
Sent from my iPad On Apr 23, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote: > Each atom of a boxed array can be any of the four types of a noun. I think > the wording is to cover that case. > On Apr 23, 2012 11:03 AM, "km" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From the Dictionary II.A. Nouns, "The atoms of any array must belong to a >> single class: numeric, literal, symbol, or boxed." >> >> How about saying the type of a noun is numeric, literal, symbol, or boxed. >> Leave it at that. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:24 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> "Type" has been an ill-defined term in the context of J. >>> >>> But it's a popular word, for describing some aspects of computer >>> programs, and a short word. So it probably deserves some use. >>> >>> And, I think, in the context of J, it should signify a thing that can >>> go inside parenthesis. That concept needs a name, and I think "type" >>> fits it rather well. >>> >>> Thus, we have system types: (1)(+)(1) >>> >>> We have named types: (smoutput)(ARGV) >>> >>> We have anonymous types: (+/%#) (i.9) >>> >>> We have types of nouns, types of verbs and so on. >>> >>> We have numeric types, textual types, list types (and these can >>> overlap), and so on. >>> >>> etc. >>> >>> Now, one thing that this loses is the idea of a type as a >>> collection... or does it? (1 2 3 4) >>> >>> No, what this loses is the idea of a type as a representation of >>> possibilities... or does it? ? bind 100 >>> >>> No, what this loses is the idea of a type as a storage format. But >>> when I have proposed the idea that "type" represents a storage format, >>> I have been told that that's silly, by people who would be in a >>> position to know. >>> >>> Another concept of a type is that it represents a "domain", but that >>> has a similar lack of acceptance from people that deal with types on a >>> regular basis. >>> >>> Anyways, if my proposal here has any flaws, I think it's that this >>> definition of "type" might be too restrictive for some people. But I >>> think that that is ok -- you can use another language if you want to >>> use a different concept of type. >>> >>> Comments? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -- >>> Raul >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
