If you were getting the non-noun message on web but not Jqt, is it possible that sentences are being executed under a noun? The sentences you mentioned would be errors in a noun but not in a modifier.
Henry Rich On Tue, Mar 29, 2022, 9:12 AM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > I was mistaken about the JE bug. I believe the code correctly puts out > the message only for non-assigned results that are not nouns and cannot > become the result of an explicit modifier. I say those sentences are > always invalid, but would like to hear of any counterexamples. > > Henry Rich > > On 3/29/2022 8:54 AM, Henry Rich wrote: > > The 'non-noun' message should not be displayed if the sentence is an > > assignment or if it is a line of an explicit adverb/conjunction that > > cannot become the result. There seems to be a JE bug that displays the > > message incorrectly in adverbs/conjunctions. I'll fix that for the > > next release, but it'll be a few days. > > > > My intention is that no valid code will ever generate the message. > > > > 9!:55 1e6;7 should silence that warning. The 7 is a list of errors > > not to be displayed. > > > > Henry Rich > > > > > > On 3/29/2022 4:04 AM, Raul Miller wrote: > >> What argument would have to be supplied to 9!:55 to suppress the > >> warning if we're running on that older version of J? > >> > >> https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/Foreigns seems to be silent > >> on this subject, and experimentation hasn't proven fruitful for me > >> (except in the sense of noting that 9!:55]_1 seems to trigger a domain > >> error when I run one of those verb assignments.) > >> > >> (I should perhaps note that some verb assignments do not produce this > >> warning message, and the message appears twice when it appears. So > >> it's quite possible that there's something unusual that has gone wrong > >> here. But, if this could be controlled by 9!:55, it would be good to > >> know how.) > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Raul > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 2:07 AM bill lam <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> The built date only indicated the date of building binaries. > >>> > >>> 3f11a5f1 2022-02-05 11:29 -0500 HenryHRich o Silence non-noun > >>> message by > >>> default > >>> > >>> if the version of source for building J binary is newer than this, > >>> then 007 > >>> warning should be disabled by default. You can test something like > >>> this, > >>> jconsole -jprofile NB. don't load any profile > >>> > >>> 3 : 0'' > >>> + + + > >>> 0 > >>> ) > >>> 0 > >>> 9!:55[1e6;'' > >>> 3 : 0'' > >>> + + + > >>> 0 > >>> ) > >>> (007) noun result was required > >>> 0 > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 1:47 PM 'robert therriault' via General < > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> This what I get from within the J playground > >>>> > >>>> 9!:14 '' > >>>> > j903/j32/linux/beta/GPL3/unknown/2022-03-09T13:58:40/clang-14-0-0/SLEEF=0 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Could it be that the j32 version is the difference? > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, bob > >>>> > >>>>> On Mar 28, 2022, at 22:37, bill lam <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> At one point, the 007 warning was default enabled but reverted in > >>>>> later > >>>>> release. So it depends on the which git commit the j playground , > >>>>> the J > >>>>> engine was built. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 1:21 PM Raul Miller <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> The value returned from 9!:54'' is the same (00;0$0) both in jqt > >>>>>> (where I do not get the warning messages) and in j playground > >>>>>> (where I > >>>>>> do get the warning messages). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So it does not seem likely that a difference in how 9!:55 was used > >>>>>> could explain this difference in behavior. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Raul > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 1:14 AM bill lam <[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> Those are not errors, see the 9!:55 in nuvoc. > >>>>>>> Is it possible that 9!:55 is executed in your profile or > >>>>>>> startup.ijs ? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 12:58 PM Raul Miller <[email protected] > > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> He does not have such a sentence, as near as I can tell. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Here's the statements which would be generating those messages: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> CODE=: {{)n > >>>>>>>> cocurrent 'z' > >>>>>>>> isNoun =: (0 = 4!:0 ::0:)@:< > >>>>>>>> isgerund =: 0:`(0 -.@e. 3 : ('y (5!:0)';'1')"0)@.(0 < L.) :: 0: > >>>>>>>> ar =: 1 : '5!:1 <''u''' > >>>>>>>> ari =: 1 : 'if. isNoun ''u'' do. if. (isgerund -.@+. '''' -: ]) > >>>>>>>> m do. > >>>>>>>> m ar else. m end. else.u ar end.' > >>>>>>>> ti =: ari ` ari NB. different from doubleadverb2.ijs: '' is > >>>>>>>> passed to > >>>>>>>> ` . boxed non gerund is ar'd ie a:`u > >>>>>>>> F0 =: 1 : 'u ti ti `: 6' > >>>>>>>> v2c =: 1 : '[. u ].' > >>>>>>>> F1 =: 1 : '(ti u) ti (''''ti) `:6' > >>>>>>>> F2 =: 1 : 'ti ti u `: 6' > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> F01 =: ((ti (2 : 'ti')))(`:6) > >>>>>>>> F02 =: 2 : '(u`)(`v)(`:6)' > >>>>>>>> F02 =: ( ([.(2 : 'ti')) (2 : 'ti' ].) ) (`:6) > >>>>>>>> F12 =: (2 : 'ti' ti) `: 6 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> F =: F12 NB. chosen for composition consistency, but F1 still very > >>>>>> useful > >>>>>>>> amend =: [` ([. ` ar) `{`] `: 6 ` (]."_) `] }~~ > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> NB. means from partial modifiers > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> means =: #F2 > >>>>>>>> mean =: +/ means % > >>>>>>>> meang =: */ means (%:~) > >>>>>>>> meanh =: +/@:% means (%~) > >>>>>>>> }} > >>>>>>>> 0!:101 CODE > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And, testing, those messages do not appear when these > >>>>>>>> statements are > >>>>>> run > >>>>>>>> in jqt > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So there is something specific about the webassembly port of J > >>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>> is causing these messages to appear. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> FYI, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Raul > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 10:07 PM Henry Rich <[email protected] > > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Why do you have such a sentence? Do you need it? I want to make > >>>>>> those > >>>>>>>>> an error, because beginners frequently create them by > >>>>>>>>> mistake. What > >>>>>>>>> does it do for you? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Henry Rich > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2022 9:21 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via General wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Expressions that return verbs create those error messages even > >>>>>> though > >>>>>>>> verb is still returned from expression (if not assigned) > >>>>>>>>>> +/ %F # (from linked playground) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022, 09:15:25 p.m. EDT, Raul Miller < > >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hmm... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We could probably do with a denser way of expressing code. (I > >>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>> think of several possibilities here.) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> But, also, I ran into a problem testing this: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> mean =: +/ means % > >>>>>>>>>> (007) noun result was required > >>>>>>>>>> (007) noun result was required > >>>>>>>>>> meang =: */ means (%:~) > >>>>>>>>>> (007) noun result was required > >>>>>>>>>> (007) noun result was required > >>>>>>>>>> meanh =: +/@:% means (%~) > >>>>>>>>>> (007) noun result was required > >>>>>>>>>> (007) noun result was required > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> FYI, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > >>>>>>>>> https://www.avg.com > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
