Thanks Roger, that makes sense now. The history of J is one of it`s intriguing aspects for sure.
Re: Linda: I would call it a v(erb) as opposed to a N(oun). But what do I know? ;-) Mike On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Roger Hui <rogerhui.can...@gmail.com> wrote: > 'noun verb verb' is a fork and is interpreted as 'noun"_ verb verb' (noun"_ > is a constant verb whose result is noun). http://keiapl.org/anec/#nvv > > 'verb verb noun' can not be made into a fork because 'verb noun' already > has an interpretation (*viz*., apply verb to noun). > > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Michal D. <michal.dobrog...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > Change from a Noun to a verb, view its tacit version and apply it to > > data: > > > > > > dd=: 13 :'(y%2) > (?]) x$y' > > > > > > dd > > > (2 %~ ]) > [: (? ]) $ > > > > > > > That is quite cool. I'm surprised that you can automatically get the > tacit > > definition. Does this work for any explicitly defined verb? > > > > I'm also surprised at the way %~ came out. Do left hand arguments not > > require a & to bind the argument? It is strange to me that (1) works but > > (2) does not. It seems to me that (3) is the logical way to phrase > either > > of them (ie. a fork with a constant right / left side). To reiterate, > why > > does (1) work? > > > > (1) (2 %~ ]) > [: (? ]) $ > > (2) (] % 2) > [: (? ]) $ > > (3a) (2: %~ ]) > [: (? ]) $ > > (3b) (] %~ 2:) > [: (? ]) $ > > (4a) (%&2 ]) > [: (? ]) $ NB. incorrect (hook caught me out > again)! > > (4b) ([: %&2 ]) > [: (? ]) $ NB. correct > > > > Cheers, > > > > Mike > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
