I get value errors for op and acc on starting up, unless I initialise them in calc_run.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Sherlock, Ric <[email protected]> wrote: > I've made some more "improvements" to calc2.ijs. Includes "-" button. > Adding additional operations should be trival. > Renamed the verb "clear" to "clr" so that clear_z_ is still easily useable. > > I use the TortoiseMerge app to do diffs between similar versions of a script. > I'm sure you have your own favourite. > > Ric > >> From: Of Ian Clark >> Sent: Tuesday, 2 November 2010 17:12 >> >> Thanks for calc2, Ric. >> >> I'll have to study it closely because it's much like my own extension, >> but not exactly so. >> >> I also feel that buttons for the remaining ops are needed now, and >> that this needn't complicate the demo too much. In fact with the use >> of 'bind' (and I was confusing 'bind' and Bond but you didn't say >> anything) my demo has become if anything too simple to illustrate what >> I originally wanted to. >> >> Ian >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Sherlock, Ric >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> From: Ian Clark >> >> Sent: Tuesday, 2 November 2010 09:33 >> >> >> >> > I agreed with Brian that I missed the "equals" button in the >> original >> >> calc.ijs. Now I miss the "plus" button. It seems unintuitive to >> press >> >> "=" when you want to add. >> >> >> >> Hahaha! (Can't please everybody.) Can I interest you in a more >> >> advanced calculator? It's called J ... :-) >> >> >> >> I'm just glad I wasn't on the design team of the original pocket >> >> calculator. It's subtler than it looks. >> >> >> >> Providing both '+' and '=' buttons means adding a whole row or >> column >> >> of buttons or it looks untidy. I've a calc with the conventional >> >> look'n'feel -- but IMO it's too complex to serve as a good demo. >> >> >> > >> > I've attached an alternative layout to the JinaDay wiki page (named >> calc2.ijs) that includes separate '=' and '+' buttons. There are also >> some minor changes to some of the verbs to make it work more like my >> calculator and make it easier for users to add other operation buttons. >> See if you think that works/looks OK. >> > >> >> > The current phrasing of your "blasphemous comment" has more impact >> >> but I get the feeling that your actual message is more like: "There >> is >> >> no need to get your head around tacit definition". The fact is that >> >> many of the button handlers in the calc script use tacit code! I >> >> suppose it comes down to whether you think that being provocative >> >> rather than reassuring will help get your message across best. >> >> >> >> "Here Be Dragons..." >> >> >> >> I meant to be reassuring by being provocative. Reassuring (to >> APLers) >> >> by being (or, rather, risking being) provocative to J-ers. >> >> >> >> De-mystifying a topic is never free from the insinuation that the >> >> mystery is intentional: or at the very least, serving someone's >> >> purpose. People are quite smart, you know. If a mystery serves no >> >> purpose -- or no one's purpose -- it soon gets cleared up. It >> follows >> >> that de-mystification is apt be viewed as de-bunking. >> >> >> >> It wasn't my intention to debunk. Simply to cast some light. Maybe >> to >> >> let in some fresh air. >> >> >> >> On first encountering APL my initial response was to feel >> inadequate. >> >> I should have felt humble, but instead I felt humiliated. Because at >> >> the time I was masquerading as a "computer scientist", ie an expert. >> >> This was back in 1973, when the industry was less fragmented. It was >> >> "IBM and the Seven Dwarfs" -- and I was IBM. >> >> >> >> So I looked for holes. For excuses to label APL as mad, not >> brilliant. >> >> Then I'd be exposed as sane, not stupid. It reassured me to swap sly >> >> remarks about the language, especially as others felt the same as I. >> >> >> >> On first encountering J, I experienced the selfsame feeling I had on >> >> first meeting APL. It largely revolved around "tacit programming". >> >> Attempts by those who'd Seen The Light to motivate me by saying >> "it's >> >> really quite easy" -- or -- "it's far better than APL doing it this >> >> way" simply provoked hostility. And not just in me, I observed. >> >> >> >> So there was a barrier to surmount, before I could contemplate J >> >> equably, let alone consider using it myself for a serious task. >> >> >> >> Tacit programming _isn't_ "really quite easy". In principle, >> maybe... >> >> But in practice it's as much a strain as coding in 68000 ASM. (Yes, >> >> done that -- and sold the result). >> >> >> >> And that, I think, is the way to look at it. Those who can do it can >> >> justly be proud of their skill. But nobody is ashamed of not being >> >> able to compose 68000 machine code in their heads without computer >> >> assistance, so why should they be when it's tacit J? >> >> >> >> There is this difference. Machine-code is best kept beneath the >> >> covers. But tacit J beneficially seeps out. As you observe, there's >> >> tacit code in calc.ijs. >> >> >> >> IMO the issue over tacit J is not whether we should banish (digit&1) >> >> from calc.ijs, but whether we should aim to make novices ashamed of >> >> writing: >> >> quo=: 3 : 'Q,(":>y),Q' NB. place datum in quotes >> >> instead of: >> >> quo=: Q , Q ,~ [: ": > >> >> because that, I think, has been counter-productive. >> >> >> >> They'll do so in the end... and like as not they won't know they're >> >> doing it. >> > >> > I agree that it is counterproductive to denigrate the use of explicit >> definition. I don't think that happens really, although I know that a >> lot of code on the forums is tacit. As I said recently on comp.lang.apl >> I think this is really just a side effect of more experienced users >> thinking and working more in tacit mode. >> > >> > I remember when I started learning J that I pretty much "ignored" >> trying to create tacit verbs - I was content to stick with explicit. I >> found the tacit code on the forum hard to read/understand. I think my >> biggest hurdle in coming to terms with tacit was being able to reliably >> identify the parts of speech for J's various primitives (verb vs adverb >> vs conjunction). Without that knowledge it is hard to identify the >> composed verbs and correctly separate the hooks from the forks. As I >> learnt the J primitives and their parts of speech, suddently tacit >> didn't seem so hard after all, and now I find myself using it in >> preference to explicit for many sentences. >> > >> > Having said that I'd be more inclined to promote the use this form >> than the one liner string form above. Otherwise things can get messy >> when dealing with strings. >> > quo=: 3 : 0 >> > Q,(":>y),Q >> > ) >> > >> > Ric >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> > 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
