Thanks, Joe.

I take my hat off to you, if you, a beginner, can run a lab in JQt from a
downloaded .ijt file.


On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Joe Bogner <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ian, thank you for uploading and creating a lab. I've downloaded it from
> svn and used it in jqt 8. I was uncertain how to get started from the wiki
> page that referenced it. The lab, test file, and tte.ijs makes it immensely
> more clear to me. I've only used it a bit and found it to be very helpful
> for a beginner such as myself.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:49 AM, bill lam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I can that you can commit changes to svn, can you explain why you cannot
> > change the lablist.txt?
> >
> > On 19 Sep, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Ian Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > It's okay Bill, I've located the one verb I've used in misc.ijs and
> > copied
> > > it into tte.ijs.
> > >
> > > It works fine now in JQt.
> > >
> > > But to run: tte.ijs -needs this line inserting in lablist.txt:
> > > Debug;Explicate a given tacit verb;~addons/debug/tte/tte.ijt
> > >
> > >   open '~addons/labs/labs/lablist.txt'   NB. -to do the hand-edit
> > >
> > > but I don't know how to fix lablist.txt via svn.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:33 AM, bill lam <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Try load the specific script inside the specific misc folder
> > >>
> > >> require '~addons/.../misc/....ijs'
> > >>
> > >> On 19 Sep, 2013, at 1:49 PM, Ian Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Further to this, I've uploaded a new addon: 'debug/tte'
> > >>>
> > >>> used like this:
> > >>>  require 'debug/tte'
> > >>>  mytacitverb tte
> > >>>
> > >>> Studio > Labs --shows a new lab under Category: Debug:
> > >>>    Explicate (convert to explicit) a given tacit verb
> > >>>
> > >>> Or you can get some rough'n'ready documentation with:
> > >>>  ABOUT_tte_
> > >>>
> > >>> At present it only works under j602. When I try it under j64-801 it
> > fails
> > >>> because:
> > >>>  require 'misc'
> > >>> is no longer supported, giving the error: not found:
> > >>> /Applications/j64-801/bin/misc
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Joe Bogner <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Thanks Ian. trace looks helpful too. I hadn't stumbled upon that
> yet.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Ian Clark <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Joe Bogner asks:
> > >>>>> " Is there a utility to generate an explicit definition from a
> tacit
> > >>>>> definition?"
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> There've certainly been attempts at one. There hasn't been any
> > >> published
> > >>>>> improvement on this one by Zsban Ambrus:
> > >>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Scripts/TacitToExplicit
> > >>>>> ...though I've had an add-on on the stocks, waiting to get properly
> > >>>> tested
> > >>>>> for almost a year now. (Sorry... it was low priority.)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I also wrote a "roadmap" a year ago to pull together all the
> relevant
> > >>>> stuff
> > >>>>> on jwiki...
> > >>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Guides/Tacit_to_explicit_roadmap
> > >>>>> ...but I notice I didn't finish it (it needs to mention Ambrus's
> > "tte",
> > >>>> and
> > >>>>> it's incomplete in "Approach #2").
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Joe Bogner <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> I'm learning the evaluation rules for tacit expressions, since
> that
> > is
> > >>>>>> what's commonly posted as solutions. Is there a utility to
> generate
> > an
> > >>>>>> explicit definition from a tacit definition?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> For example, to generate a tacit expression from explicit
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 13 : '(+/ y) % # y'
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> +/ % #
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Is there some routine to expand that out? (I've now learned that
> > its a
> > >>>>>> fork).  It seems possible that it could expand out to multiple
> > >> possible
> > >>>>>> variants -- since as I understand, it's a reduced form. I've
> looked
> > at
> > >>>>>> fndisplay but didn't put too much time into it yet since I wasn't
> > sure
> > >>>>> that
> > >>>>>> it's what I was looking for.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Along those same lines, j6 shows a representation of an expression
> > in
> > >>>>> boxes
> > >>>>>> which I've found to be helpful to understand how an expression is
> > >>>>> grouped.
> > >>>>>> I haven't seen that same functionality in j7 or j8. Does it exist?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I find myself spending a fair amount of time taking an expression
> > and
> > >>>>> then
> > >>>>>> looking up its parts in the Vocabulary to understand what its
> doing.
> > >>>>>>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>> 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

Reply via email to