Ian, I was surprised when I saw your attachment in the forum, I had thought that the forum didn't accept them. Doesn't look like it accepted mine. I will send it to you directly. Ric
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:general- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherlock, Ric > Sent: Wednesday, 3 November 2010 21:30 > To: General forum > Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] "J In A Day" --crits please > > I think Bill is right, > Options are to make sure adverb definition is before tacit handler > definition or make the handler definition explicit. The attached shows > both approaches. > > Also: > Seems that acc should be ACC to be consistent with NEWNUMBER . > Moved initialization of ACC and op to clr . > Seems pointless to bind numeric digits to digit and convert them to > character. > 8!:2 automatically converts _ to - . > > > > > From: Ian Clark > > Sent: Wednesday, 3 November 2010 15:59 > > > > 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 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
