On 5/10/07, Dan Bron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now, I say, "a property you seek" instead of "the property you seek"
because you clearly seek more than you stated explicitly.
Yes.
On 5/10/07, Markus Schmidt-Groettrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All entities can be represented with the explicit definition,
for example define
plus =: ( 3 : ((43{a.),'y')) : ( 4 : ('x',(43{a.),'y')))
and the primitives you need are : , { a. ( )
This is obviously not the solution you are thinking of, but may help to
clarify the rules needed to make this approach useful.
Yes.
I am trying to minimize both the number of primitives in my
"minimal set" and the size of the definitions required to realize
the rest of the language.
Put differently, I suppose an acceptable metric would be
the number of primitives in the minimal set times the average
size of each definition for each of J's primitives not in the
primitive set -- with this value for monads summed with this
value for dyads. I would be trying to minimize this metric.
Thanks,
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
