Raul, I had recently come across your "The non-empty monad definition is silently discarded." But I concluded that I had just misapplied dyad when I meant verb. After all, a dyad is just a dyad, and the following error is reported.
example 4 |domain error: example | example 4 You did not explain why you have stopped using the names like monad, dyad, and verb. Do you have a reason? I suppose it is a little artificial to use the words in place of the numbers if one does not also use the Primitive names in place of the Primitive symbols. I am sort of indifferent to the two verb defining methods. On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have gotten into the habit of using tacit representation of explicit > definitions. > > In other words: > > verbM=: 3 :0 > 'example monad definition' > ) > > verbD=: 4 :0 > 'example dyad definition' > ) > > verbV=: 3 :0 > 'example monad definition' > : > 'example dyad definition' > ) > > instead of: > > verbM=: monad define > 'example monad definition' > ) > > verbD=: dyad define > 'example dyad definition' > ) > > verbV=: verb define > 'example monad definition' > : > 'example dyad definition' > ) > > Notice, in particular: > > monad > 3 > verb > 3 > dyad > 4 > > (Aside: note that the top links from > http://www.jsoftware.com/phrases/explicit_def.htm are dead. Maybe someone > should spider jsoftware and compile a list of pages which have this defect? > (From experience: if you try to catalog all defects the problem becomes > overwhelming and neglected.)) > > Anyways, I've been noticing an issue with the current implementation of (4 > :) which I think should be changed. > > example=: 4 :0 > 'example monad definition' > : > 'example dyad definition' > ) > > And that "works"... sort of: > > example > > 4 : ' ''example dyad definition''' > > > See what happens here? The non-empty monad definition is silently > discarded. I think that J should signal an error for this case. Otherwise > when you promote a dyad definition to a dual valence definition you run the > risk of a bug that looks like you are loading a stale version of your > script. > > This proposed change does not conflict with > http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/d310n.htm > > What do you all think? > > (That said, note also that we now have an open source license on J - maybe > one of us should step up and start releasing community versions, with > something new from 9!:14'' ?) > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- (B=) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
