Note that this creates a new problem -- what kind of state does the
debugger need to track?
Without the "0 we only have one instance of the explicit verb state.
With the "0 we can have millions of instances of the explicit verb
state. Of course, we only execute one instance at a time, but now we
are asking the interpreter to do some kind of extra tracking for verbs
derived by (") and not just in verbs derived by ( :) ...
Anyways, it's doable, but I'm not convinced that "just addressing this
one common case" would yield simpler code than what we'd get from a
proper design.
But maybe Roger or Henry or others have deeper insights than I (and I
will note that there's a related struggle having to do with how we
handle the display when intermediate results become both numerous and
large).
--
Raul
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Being able to step through a tacit definition as Henry's work shows sure
> would be great. But as a start it would be nice if the explicit debugger
> like the one in J6 did not get confused if a definition included some tacit
> expression like "0 in the definition line.
>
> test=:(3 : 0)"0
> (rank 0 processing)
> )
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That sounds great!
>>
>> What does it mean?
>>
>> (Note that Henry's recent efforts might be relevant, here.)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Raul
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > How about the debugger handle tacit definitions as well as explicit ones?
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Linda Alvord <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > However, I do not understand how ic and ic2 agree when they don't!
>> >>
>> >> . . .
>> >>
>> >> Personally, I sometimes wish that a rank decoration or other modifier
>> >> on an explicit definition would not interfere with debugging. I think
>> >> that this issue introduces two different phrasing styles, and there's
>> >> a tension between them that I am not totally sure is good for us.
>> >> . . .
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
