I believe that I don't have to "use" a fork for the fork to exist. (But what does "use" mean, for a symbolic expression?) So, anyways, the [ [ [ [ [ [ [ sequence in ([ [ [ [ [ [ [)`'' is actually three forks: ([ [ ([ [ ([ [ [))).
On a related note, is + invoked in the sentence +/'' (or in related sentences)? [Or is it evoked?] Something similar to my above expressions happens with verbs used in special code, and with verbs passed to some adverbs and conjunctions. Or, for that matter, if we look at the implementation closely enough, for expressions like 1 2 3 + 4 5 6. (If I recall correctly, '+' is just an ascii character which jtva() uses, along with information about rank and argument storage format, when deciding which code to run on its arguments). Anyways, I do not think I'm trying to tell you that you should think of yourself as being wrong in any absolute sense. But I think I am trying to tell you that your point of view does not fit very well into my perspectives and my ways of thinking about J. (All too often, we use "truth" to identify contexts, but sometimes this shorthand makes talking about other contexts a subtle and elusive thing.) Thanks, -- Raul On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > I am still somewhat confused, where is the fork then? You are not > referring ( [ [ [ [ [ [ [)`'' as a fork. Are you? You are not considering > forks that are not invoked (such as the one in the sentence '[ [ ['). Are > you? Maybe you are, but in that case the [: vs @: argument would be mute > or, alternatively, I could say " 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 that is invoked" instead. (I am afraid we might be starting to > split hairs though.) > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > >> All [ >> >> None of the [ verbs receive any arguments. >> >> The only verb which does anything, in that sentence, is L. >> >> FYI, >> >> -- >> Raul >> >> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Jose Mario Quintana >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Which one ( L.([ [ [ [ [ [ [)`'' ) ? >> > >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> [ >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Raul >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Jose Mario Quintana >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I am afraid these examples might be too deep for me. For instance, >> >> > presumably in your last example there is a leading verb in a fork >> which >> >> is >> >> > not invoked. If so, which one is that verb? >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Jose Mario Quintana >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > I do not have to wonder: if there are no teasers; the remaining >> caps >> >> (if >> >> >> > any) are whistle-blowers. >> >> >> >> >> >> What is a whistle blower? >> >> >> >> >> >> L.([: [: [: [: [: [: [:)`'' >> >> >> 7 >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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). >> >> >> >> >> >> That also depends on the specific instance of a fork. >> >> >> >> >> >> L.([ [ [ [ [ [ [)`'' >> >> >> 7 >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, I like this reasoning. >> >> >> >> >> >> (I have not bothered quoting your message in full, because it's >> >> >> available in the archives. If we were really concerned about >> >> >> preserving context, every email message here would include a >> canonical >> >> >> link to its archived version.) >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> 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 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> 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
