My point was not that your preferences for [: vs @: should change. My there point was that it's simply not the case that "[: is the only verb that is not invoked when is the leading verb in a fork". Your preferences should survive this distinction, I imagine. Preferences are usually stable...
A related point, though is that I think "evoke" is a better word than "invoke", to describe the general case of what happens with a symbol in a J sentence. I think that invoke suggests direct use while evoke also tolerates indirect use. Thanks, -- Raul On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > "But I think I am > trying to tell you that your point of view does not fit very well into > my perspectives" > > Yes, our perspectives are different; from mine I still do not see why the > sentence L.([ [ [ [ [ [ [)`'' (or L.([: [: [: [: [: [: [:)`'' for that > matter) should affect one's preference for [: over @: or vice versa when > programming or metaprogramming. Anyway, I am not aware of any significant > issues related to avoiding [: ; so, I would welcome any specific instances, > illustrating your perspectives, strongly suggesting to the contrary. As > somebody allegedly did not say "when the facts change, I change my mind." > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
