And note also that this does not exhaust the possibilities for this
case.  Here are a few others:

If the ranks are appropriate, [: f0 f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 might be written as
f1 f0@f2 f3 f4 f5

Alternatively if the fork is associated with a concept that's worth
considering in isolation, we might use something like f6=: f1 f2 f3 f4
f5 along with f0@f6

Or, maybe we can rewrite f0 as a dyadic verb which needs a constant
left argument.

Or, maybe we can eliminate f0 entirely if we move the whole process
into another domain.

I think one of the issues here is that we are struggling to express
meaning, and style is only one of our tools for doing so - and it's
not always our best tool for that purpose.

-- 
Raul

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Roger Hui <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I feel that it's very hard to win (hard to be clearer) if you replace a
> primitive conjunction by something else.
>
> I can use this to illustrate why it's difficult to have an absolute rule of
> style.  If I am composing functions f0, f1, f2, f3, f4, etc., and assuming
> rank is not a problem, I'd write f0@f1@f2@f3@f4.  But suppose I have a
> bunch of forks and then the last (leftmost) thing is a f0@ ?  In that case
> I may write [: f0 f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 instead of f0@(f1 f2 f3 f4 f5).  Or, even
> more confounding, if the last two things are atops?  Then do I write f0@f1@(f2
> f3 f4 f5 f6) or [: f0 [: f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 ?  In such cases it is arguable
> that replacing a primitive conjunction made the expression clearer.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:31 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 & .
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to