Yes, if the relatedness within each primitive set gets lost,
won't a need for 3-to-6 times the number of J primitives
virtually cancel any one-token-per-command advantage?
Devon McCormick wrote:
This is nice but avoids the hard parts of the problem.
It's easy to say that "i." is "iota", but where does "i:" fit in? In J,
the "dot" and "colon" versions of a verb often have a a fitting relation,
e.g. "+" is addition, "+." is logical "or", and (monadic) "+:" is
"double"; analogously, "*" is times, "*." is logical "and", and (monadic)
"*:" is "square". Or, how about (^ ^. ^:) as "power", "log" and "power
conjunction"? The APL characters, as pretty as they are, lose these
relations between concepts
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:52 PM, William Tanksley, Jr<[email protected]
wrote:
That really is magnificent -- and I speak as someone who stopped trying to
learn APL (before J was easily available) because I found the character set
unapproachable. I could easily see myself switching to that overlay for
normal coding and reading.
I'd like to see this developed into a coherent standard with concern for
the capabilities of different editors (I use vim and Android).
Marc Simpson<[email protected]> wrote:
Personally, I think this is a neat idea and one worth pursuing. I tried
something similar in Emacs using overlays a while back (Don might recall
this). Examples from that experiment:
http://0branch.com/snippets/j-symbols3.png
http://0branch.com/snippets/j-symbols4.png
-Wm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
