This is beautiful. I agree about replacing & . Sent from my iPad
On Feb 7, 2013, at 1:31 PM, 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
