Hi Ric,
Thanks for helping to extend calc.ijs.
I've been developing in parallel with yours, but have raided some of
your verbs, which are neater than mine. The result is uploaded same
place as yours (attachments: JinaDay) as: calcic2.ijs
It has a full range of + - * / buttons, implemented with (verb):
setop, which I feel is a little clunky. Out of interest I've tried a
neater alternative, an adverb called: in, so I can use +in, -in, etc.
It would be a nice demo of adverbs returning verbs. But I think I've
hit a J bug...
This works fine:
calc_times_button=: doit
...where doit is defined, as in the script, _after_ the definition of: in as:
doit =: *in
But this doesn't (it upsets the gui somehow):
calc_times_button=: * in
Nor does this:
doit =: *in
calc_times_button=: doit
Can you see what I'm doing wrong? I can't.
Ian
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Sherlock, Ric <[email protected]> wrote:
> Further update to calc2.ijs:
>
> Altered button order/layout.
>
> Moved NEWNUMBER=: 1 to update rather than repeating in each operation button.
>
> Ends up highlighting another gotcha for new users:
> If you define a verb whose result is a verb, adverb or conjunction then J
> will report a syntax error when the verb runs. If no result is required then
> a common solution is to add an extra line that returns "empty" (i.0 0)
>
>> From: Sherlock, Ric
>> Sent: Wednesday, 3 November 2010 12:55
>>
>> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
NB. elementary calculator demo
NB. by Ian Clark and
NB. a slightly more elaborate form of: calc.ijs
cocurrent 'calc'
erase names''
CALC=: noun define
pc calc;
xywh 30 125 30 12;cc cancel button;cn "Quit";
xywh 4 5 80 12;cc result edit;
xywh 5 20 18 18;cc func1 button;cn "?";
xywh 25 20 18 18;cc func2 button;cn "?";
xywh 45 20 18 18;cc func3 button;cn "?";
xywh 65 20 18 18;cc divid button;cn "/";
xywh 5 40 18 18;cc num7 button;cn "7";
xywh 25 40 18 18;cc num8 button;cn "8";
xywh 45 40 18 18;cc num9 button;cn "9";
xywh 65 40 18 18;cc times button;cn "X";
xywh 5 60 18 18;cc num4 button;cn "4";
xywh 25 60 18 18;cc num5 button;cn "5";
xywh 45 60 18 18;cc num6 button;cn "6";
xywh 65 60 18 18;cc minus button;cn "-";
xywh 5 80 18 18;cc num1 button;cn "1";
xywh 25 80 18 18;cc num2 button;cn "2";
xywh 45 80 18 18;cc num3 button;cn "3";
xywh 65 80 18 18;cc plus button;cn "+";
xywh 5 100 18 18;cc num0 button;cn "0";
xywh 25 100 18 18;cc dott button;cn ".";
xywh 45 100 18 18;cc clear button;cn "C";
xywh 65 100 18 18;cc equal button;cn "=";
pas 6 6;pcenter;
rem form end;
)
calc_cancel_button=: calc_close
NB. ...handlers can be just assigned.
calc_clear_button=: clr
calc_equal_button=: equals
calc_plus_button=: setop bind '+'
calc_minus_button=: setop bind '-'
calc_times_button=: doit NB. --but won't work with: (*in)
calc_divid_button=: setop bind '%'
calc_dott_button=: dotted
calc_num1_button=: digit bind 1
calc_num2_button=: digit bind 2
calc_num3_button=: digit bind 3
calc_num4_button=: digit bind 4
calc_num5_button=: digit bind 5
calc_num6_button=: digit bind 6
calc_num7_button=: digit bind 7
calc_num8_button=: digit bind 8
calc_num9_button=: digit bind 9
calc_num0_button=: digit bind 0
NB. Original run/close verbs (*--they've been altered!)
calc_run=: verb define
calc_close''
wd CALC
NB. initialize form here
op =: +
acc=: 0
clr''
wd 'setreadonly result;'
NB. next line is RGB for: text bkgnd bkgnd --enable if reqd
NB. wd 'setcolor result 255 128 128 0 0 0 0 0 0;'
wd 'pshow;'
)
calc_close=: verb define
wd ::0: 'psel calc; pclose;' NB. failsafe version
)
NB. More fns (in alphabetical order)
clr=: verb define
update '0'
op=: +
NEWNUMBER=: 1
)
decimal=: verb define
NB. converts number being built to a valid decimal
NB. y -- numeral in a string (eg as in
if. 0=#y do. y=. '0.' end.
if. '.' e. y do. y else. y,'.' end.
)
digit=: verb define
d=. {. ":y
if. NEWNUMBER do. result=: '' [ NEWNUMBER=: 0 end.
put result,d
)
dotted=: verb define
if. NEWNUMBER do. result=: '' [ NEWNUMBER=: 0 end.
put decimal result
)
equals=: monad define
update result
acc=: 0
op=: +
NB. NEWNUMBER=: 1 NB. else acc is cleared if new digit typed after =
empty''
)
eval=: verb define
". y
)
NB. Equivalent 1-liner defining verb: eval ...
NB. eval=: 3 : '". ''0'',y'
NB. Tacit definition of verb: eval ...
NB. eval=: [: ". '0' , ]
put=: verb define
wd 'set result *',y
)
NB. HANDLER EXPERIMENT...
in=: adverb define
update result
op=: u
NB. trace'in'
NEWNUMBER=: 1
empty y NB. y must be mentioned for this to work!
)
doit=: *in
NB. END OF HANDLER EXPERIMENT
setop=: verb define
NB. y=right arg: arithmetic op (scalar char)
update result
select. y
case. '+' do. op=: +
case. '-' do. op=: -
case. '*' do. op=: *
case. '%' do. op=: %
end.
trace'setop'
NEWNUMBER=: 1
)
trace=: verb define
OP=. 5!:5 <'op'
smoutput y ; 'acc' ; acc ; 'op' ; OP ; 'result' ; result ; 'NEWNUMBER' ;
NEWNUMBER
)
update=: verb define
z=. ": acc=: acc op eval y
put '-' (I. z='_') }z
)
calc_run''----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
