Using @ instead of & would give a different (and wrong) answer.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Ric Sherlock <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm interested in the choice of & rather than @ in ic1. > Are there stylistic reasons for preferring the previous definition to the > following: > ic1=: , @ (j./@i:/) @ +. > > My understanding is that for monadic use u&v and u@v are equivalent. > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Roger Hui <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
