I think "yes" for all system-supplied verbs and adverbs. Kip Sent from my iPad
On Feb 7, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
