" First, [: [: in a tacit expression is "probably a whistleblower" (which I interpret as: something that matters more immediately than anything else). Of course, there might be exceptions (: ]) so it's worth reading more closely. Meanwhile, [: [: [: is almost certainly a "whistleblower". There could still be exceptions, but they would be complex to construct. But... "
I do not have to wonder: if there are no teasers; the remaining caps (if any) are whistle-blowers. " While this is a valid reading, I'll note that there can be exceptions here, also. For example, how do we know whether (-) means "subtract" or "negate", for example? In the general case we cannot know until we can see a representative set of examples. Similarly, in the general case we will not know when the subtraction takes place (or even if it will take place). " In my mind there is an important difference: this ambivalence of - is the rule rather than the exception for primitive verbs; most of them are ambivalent and for good reasons. A teaser cap is the exception to the rule, [: is the only verb that is not invoked when is the leading verb in a fork, for no compelling reason (again, from my viewpoint). " Anyways, I think overall I am sympathetic to your point, but I'm also just a wee bit uncomfortable with it (and I'm also just a wee bit uncomfortable with Linda's point). For me, I mostly think of left-to-right reading as "structural" or maybe "functional" and right-to-left reading as "procedural" or maybe "imperative". Both can be valid, except sometimes you need the other. " I am also sympathetic to your point. I did not mean to reignite a controversy that has been discussed too many times. I was just pointing out some of my reasons to Linda for avoiding [: teasers since she has previously expressed her own reasons for avoiding @: . I think one should adopt a style that makes oneself more comfortable and presumably more productive: avoiding none, avoiding one but not the other, or even avoiding both. On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > <[email protected]> wrote: > > ',{:+ [: {:}:y'(13 : ) > > [: , [: {: [: + [: [: [: {: }: > > In the good old days, from my perspective, @: was used instead of [: and > > the whistle-blower would have been as visible in the tacit as it is in the > > explicit expression. > > This reasoning sounds tantalizing, but I am uncomfortable with it. > > First, [: [: in a tacit expression is "probably a whistleblower" > (which I interpret as: something that matters more immediately than > anything else). Of course, there might be exceptions (: ]) so it's > worth reading more closely. Meanwhile, [: [: [: is almost certainly a > "whistleblower". There could still be exceptions, but they would be > complex to construct. But... > > > “Once you found a tacit expression for a block, wouldn't you use it in next > > definition? > > > > ' }. (<:0{x) |. y' (13 :) NB. Finding a tacit form for the for block... > > [: }. ] |.~ [: <: 0 { [“ > > > > I read the last line more or less as follows: trigger a domain error, just > > kidding; forget the usual fork interpretation, make the middle verb to act > > monadic-ally on the ending verb; so, drop the... trigger a domain error, > > just kidding; forget the usual fork interpretation, make the middle verb to > > act monadic-ally on the ending verb; so, decrement the first item on the > > left (argument). > > While this is a valid reading, I'll note that there can be exceptions > here, also. For example, how do we know whether (-) means "subtract" > or "negate", for example? In the general case we cannot know until we > can see a representative set of examples. Similarly, in the general > case we will not know when the subtraction takes place (or even if it > will take place). > > Anyways, I think overall I am sympathetic to your point, but I'm also > just a wee bit uncomfortable with it (and I'm also just a wee bit > uncomfortable with Linda's point). > > For me, I mostly think of left-to-right reading as "structural" or > maybe "functional" and right-to-left reading as "procedural" or maybe > "imperative". Both can be valid, except sometimes you need the other. > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
