Why do I want to put something like (3 : 0)"0 to start the definition? In many cases it makes the definition clearer. And avoids having to repeat the "0 in every use to avoid the definition failing if it only works for rank 0. Also, sometimes I want to get some information before the enclosing local names are hidden.
The problem I ran into when wanting to include rank or some other tacit processing on the data before entering the explicit definition is that the debugger then treats the entire explicit part as one line. To avoid this I have to define the verb without the "0 for testing, then add it afterward. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
