I would write it: ic1=: , @ (j./&i:/) @ +.
I feel that it's very hard to win (hard to be clearer) if you replace a primitive conjunction by something else. In this case & . On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM, 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
