Yes, when I got around to testing in a clean session I had noticed that too. The latest version on the wiki initializes them.
> From: Ian Clark > Sent: Wednesday, 3 November 2010 12:52 > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
