What do you mean by "under a noun"? The text of those sentences was referenced by a noun (named 'CODE'), which was being executed by 0!:101. Is that "under a noun"?
Thanks, -- Raul On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 11:18 PM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
