> You can not use the normal English meaning of "array" > to make this argument. Array has a special meaning > in mathematics/computer science, wherein its meaning > is due in no small part to its usage in APL (and J).
I realize that J can use the terms any way it wants to, but I suggest to you that you shouldn't depart from standard meanings without sufficient reason. It is up to each of us to decide what is sufficient; we talk about it to try to establish a common terminology. [Sometimes the Dictionary terminology is so wrong, as in using the term 'global assignment' for something like abc_xyz_ =: 5, that agreement is impossible] > > > I would use 'noun' to mean 'array or atom' in the > > cases you mention. > > > > Why have two words to mean the same thing? Currently, > > 'noun' = 'array'. > > So you would say "functions apply to noun arguments > and return noun results". That mixes two metaphors: > > noun verb adverb conjunction > array function operator I would say 'verbs apply to nouns operands and produce noun results'. I would never use the word 'operator' because to a mathematician/physicist it means a modifier, while to a C programmer it means a verb. I would also be wary about calling something a 'function' when it can return different values on successive calls with the same operand. So when I'm talking J, I would say 'verb'. I would use 'array' to mean a noun that has dimensions, and 'atom' to mean a noun that does not. 'Noun' covers both cases. > > > I want 'array' to mean rank > 0 to avoid > > the clumsy 'non-atomic array'. > > If "non-atomic array" is clumsy, then "array and atom" > is no less so, and would be used much more. e.g. > What does the monad [EMAIL PROTECTED] do? It finds the rank > of an array (or atom). For that matter, what does > the monad $ do? Finds the shape of an array (or atom). [EMAIL PROTECTED] finds the rank of a noun, and $ finds the shape of a noun. What's hard about that? Once you get over thinking that 'array' must include atoms, you can get down to the real issues: 0) Do we need a word for 'non-atomic noun'? I say yes. 1) Is there a better word than 'array'? I say no. 2) Would people be confused by a change in terminology? I say no. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Henry Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Saturday, October 6, 2007 11:07 > Subject: RE: [Jgeneral] Re: Empty dimensions confuse me > To: 'General forum' <[email protected]> > > > 'Array' to include atoms violates normal usage. > > 'Array' in plain English refers to a bunch of things > > ordered in some way. Look up the dictionary definition. > > You'll find something like > > > > regular order or arrangement; series > > > > The plain, non-tortured reading of this is that an array is > > something that has axes to be ordered along; in short, it > > is divisible. It is NOT an atom. > > > > > > I would use 'noun' to mean 'array or atom' in the > > cases you mention. > > > > Why have two words to mean the same thing? Currently, > > 'noun' = 'array'. > > > > I want 'array' to mean rank > 0 to avoid > > the clumsy 'non-atomic array'. > > > > For example, when I try to define what an 'item' is. > > It's a cell of rank one less than the noun's rank, unless > > the noun is an atom, which is a special case. I would > > like to say: > > > > An item of an array is a cell whose rank is 1 less than > > the array's rank. An atom has one item, itself. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
