I do not recall mentioning this before. I do remember saying that an
adverb could take an adverb or a conjunction as an argument in a previous
version of the interpreter, J4, I think (this also happens in our
permissive version of the interpreter).
My guess is that there is a guard checking the exit of any explicit verb
(hence, it can only produce nouns); but, there are no guards an the entry.
The reasoning, I suppose, was: if a verb can only produce nouns it can
only pass noun arguments to another verb. The trick is that tacit wicked
verbs can produce and pass any kind of words (in many ways). The door is
the one you opened and I entered though the doorway. There is no other
hidden door. (Actually, there is at least another door but that is beside
the point).
The following is an example of an explicit verb taking verbs as arguments:
9!:14''
j701/2011-01-10/11:25
e=. &.>
First, let us produce a couple of arrays (A and B) of boxed verbs,
( 'A B'=. < o evoke&6"0 o ;:e '!#$';'%^*' )
┌───────┬───────┐
│┌─┬─┬─┐│┌─┬─┬─┐│
││!│#│$│││%│^│*││
│└─┴─┴─┘│└─┴─┴─┘│
└───────┴───────┘
0{::A 5
120
Let us now produce an array (C) containing the corresponding apposed verbs,
NB. An explicit verb apposing its verb arguments (x and y)...
( C=. A (evoke&6 o (('z=. x &: y' ; 'ar''z''') (4 :))) e B )
┌────┬────┬────┐
│!&:%│#&:^│$&:*│
└────┴────┴────┘
0 {:: C 2
0.886227
If I really had tried to produce C, I would have done it tacitly,
appose=. Cloak o <'&:'
( C=. A appose e B )
┌────┬────┬────┐
│!&:%│#&:^│$&:*│
└────┴────┴────┘
0 {:: C 2
0.886227
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,
> >>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
