Ok, that makes sense. But, for example:
fread
3 : 0
if. 1 = #y=. boxopen y do.
1!:1 :: _1: fboxname y
else.
1!:11 :: _1: (fboxname {.y),{:y
end.
:
x freads y
)
The definition of fread is not simplistic - would you consider its use
to be valid in a simplistic context? If not, how about rplc?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM, km <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here is an example. Verb ics below is in Simplistic J, verb ic is not.
>
> ic =: [: , [: j./&i:/ +. NB. has modifier chain
>
> ics =: [: , [: (i:@[ j./ i:@])/ +. NB. no modifier chain
>
> (ic -: ics) 1j2
> 1
> ic 1j2 NB. Produce a "complex symmetric interval"
> _1j_2 _1j_1 _1 _1j1 _1j2 0j_2 0j_1 0 0j1 0j2 1j_2 1j_1 1 1j1 1j2
>
> Kip Murray
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:54 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That name might be less controversial if it were changed to "Simplistic J".
>>
>> That said, personally I find this definition too ambiguous to reason
>> about. Reading a file, for example, requires the use of a conjunction
>> that you have disallowed. But it looks to me like you have allowed
>> conjunctions that you have disallowed. So this implies, to me, that
>> your concept of "use" and mine are different.
>>
>> Then again, you have said that you "often" write in this style, so
>> maybe I should view this not as a constraint on code but something
>> closer to a statistical observation. Personally, I often use nouns
>> and verbs (for example), and I do indeed write sentences that do not
>> contain anything other than nouns and verbs.
>>
>> It might be worth building a "cost scheme" for evaluating the
>> complexity of a J sentence.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> sentenceCost=:verb define
>> +/1 0 1 8 16 2{~2+nc;:y
>> )
>> sentenceCost '+/1 0 1 8 16 2{~2+nc;:y'
>> 11
>>
>> A more elaborate version might enumerate individual dictionary tokens
>> instead of using 1 for all of them. Another variation might require
>> test data and explore properties of the resulting evaluation (for
>> example: is the result a noun, if so what rank is it?)
>>
>> --
>> Raul
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:49 PM, km <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I often write in Simple J, defined to be J with no conjunction other than
>>> " Rank. Adverbs, including &.> &> @[ and @] , are permitted. When
>>> I need conjunctions : @. ^: . ;. I leave Simple J.
>>>
>>> Simple J rules out modifier chains with their left-to-right association,
>>> "long left reach" and "short right reach", and relies on forks and hooks
>>> plus " Rank for composition. I like to have rank for composition out in
>>> the open when it is not infinite.
>>>
>>> Simple J including its name is controversial!
>>>
>>> Kip Murray
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
