A verb's "argument" refers to the values used to invoke it. Therefore names
fixed in its definition are not arguments (excepting y and x which are defined
to refer to its argument(s)).
Yes, it is possible to invoke verbs with strings or other nouns which directly
or indirectly name non-nouns (e.g. quoted global names, quote J code, atomic
representations as boxed nouns, etc), but I explicitly excluded that approach
in my question because it is trivial and uninteresting ("Short of passing in
strings and evoking them...").
This is Pepe we're talking about here. He's got something more wicked up his
sleeve ("explicit verbs **even if they should not** can take any kind words as
arguments").
-Dan
> On Mar 8, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Explicit verbs can refer to things by name.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
>
>
>
>> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Dan Bron <j...@bron.us> wrote:
>>
>> I know you've mentioned this capability before - can you refresh my memory?
>>
>> Short of passing in strings and evoking them, how would you get an
>> explicit verb to "see" an adverb (or conjunction) as an argument? What name
>> does it get assigned to (if it is possible for y and/or x to not have
>> nameclass noun, that's scary - in a thrilling way).
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 7:20 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <
>>> jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I wrote:
>>>
>>> "Orthodox verbs, explicit verbs in particular, can only take nouns and
>>> produce nouns; in contrast, tacit wicked verbs can take words and
>>> "
>>>
>>> Actually, explicit verbs (even if they should not) can take any kind of
>>> words as arguments when the sentences in the verb's body are
>> syntactically
>>> correct.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <
>>> jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Orthodox verbs, explicit verbs in particular, can only take nouns and
>>>> produce nouns; in contrast, tacit wicked verbs can take words and
>> produce
>>>> words of any kind (use them at your own risk). For example,
>>>>
>>>> 9!:14''
>>>> j701/2011-01-10/11:25
>>>>
>>>> o=. @:
>>>> ar=. 5!:1@<
>>>> Cloak=. (0:`)(,^:)
>>>> Cloak=. (ar'Cloak')Cloak
>>>>
>>>> 'evoke tie'=. < o Cloak "0 o ;: '`: `'
>>>>
>>>> g2v=. evoke&6 o tie f.
>>>>
>>>> +/`'' g2v %`#
>>>> +/ % #
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Pascal Jasmin <godspiral2...@yahoo.ca
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +/`'' ( 4 : 'x ` y') %`#
>>>>> ┌───────┬─┬─┐
>>>>> │┌─┬───┐│%│#│
>>>>> ││/│┌─┐││ │ │
>>>>> ││ ││+│││ │ │
>>>>> ││ │└─┘││ │ │
>>>>> │└─┴───┘│ │ │
>>>>> └───────┴─┴─┘
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to be able to define a single function (verb) that
>> produces
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (+/`'' ( 4 : 'x ` y') %`#)`:6
>>>>> +/ % #
>>>>>
>>>>> is that possible?
>>>>>
>>>>> my failed attempt:
>>>>>
>>>>> g2v =: 1 : ('( u y) `:6' ;':';'(x u y) `:6 ')
>>>>> -------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
