Alright, that is a minor point as far as I am concerned; probably due to assigning different meaning to the words. I still think my statement makes sense, mutatis mutandis if you will; for example, "[: is the only verb that does not appear in the production of the fork when is the leading verb of the fork." On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
