I had not thought about the inverse of ]: (Uncloak). It is, if I am not
mistaken,
Uncloak=. ((0 1;0;1)&{::) o > o (tie&'')
Uncloak takes a verb (produced by cloaking an adverb or a conjunction) as
an argument and should reproduce the original atomic, as oppose to the
linear, representation of the adverb or conjunction. For instance,
for=. ("1)(@:(>@:{))
type'for'
┌──────┐
│adverb│
└──────┘
ar'for'
┌───────────────────────────────────────┐
│┌─┬───────────────────────────────────┐│
││4│┌─────────────┬───────────────────┐││
││ ││┌─┬─────────┐│┌─┬───────────────┐│││
││ │││4│┌─┬─────┐│││4│┌──┬──────────┐││││
││ │││ ││"│┌─┬─┐││││ ││@:│┌──┬─────┐│││││
││ │││ ││ ││0│1│││││ ││ ││@:│┌─┬─┐││││││
││ │││ ││ │└─┴─┘││││ ││ ││ ││>│{│││││││
││ │││ │└─┴─────┘│││ ││ ││ │└─┴─┘││││││
││ ││└─┴─────────┘││ ││ │└──┴─────┘│││││
││ ││ ││ │└──┴──────────┘││││
││ ││ │└─┴───────────────┘│││
││ │└─────────────┴───────────────────┘││
│└─┴───────────────────────────────────┘│
└───────────────────────────────────────┘
(ar'for') `:6
("1)(@:(>@:{))
(-: Uncloak o ]:) (ar'for')
1
(Uncloak o ]:) (ar'for')
┌───────────────────────────────────────┐
│┌─┬───────────────────────────────────┐│
││4│┌─────────────┬───────────────────┐││
││ ││┌─┬─────────┐│┌─┬───────────────┐│││
││ │││4│┌─┬─────┐│││4│┌──┬──────────┐││││
││ │││ ││"│┌─┬─┐││││ ││@:│┌──┬─────┐│││││
││ │││ ││ ││0│1│││││ ││ ││@:│┌─┬─┐││││││
││ │││ ││ │└─┴─┘││││ ││ ││ ││>│{│││││││
││ │││ │└─┴─────┘│││ ││ ││ │└─┴─┘││││││
││ ││└─┴─────────┘││ ││ │└──┴─────┘│││││
││ ││ ││ │└──┴──────────┘││││
││ ││ │└─┴───────────────┘│││
││ │└─────────────┴───────────────────┘││
│└─┴───────────────────────────────────┘│
└───────────────────────────────────────┘
((Uncloak o ]:) (ar'for')) (`:6)
("1)(@:(>@:{))
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:56 PM, bill lam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for explanation.
>
> A related question, how to do the inverse of ]: ie to get the linear
> representation of an anonymous functional?
>
> 10.03.2014, в 3:30, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]>
> написал(а):
>
> > Yes, the verb ]: produces non-nouns and the reason for defining it as a
> > verb is because it becomes much more powerful this way. Why?
> Fortunately
> > for me Dan has already has explained masterfully why, in the context of
> > cloaking agenda (@.) as a verb in
> > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2013-January/031249.html;
> > he was not aware at that time that a cloaked @. is a wicked verb but that
> > only strengthens his arguments. Here there is an example of this power,
> > involving the verb ]:, for cloaking a few conjunctions and assigning them
> > to multiple verbs (evoke, power, agenda and at) at once,
> >
> > ( 'evoke power agenda at'=. ]: @: < &.> @: ;: '`: ^: @. @:' )
> > ┌───────────┬───────────┬───────────┬───────────┐
> > │(]:(<'`:'))│(]:(<'^:'))│(]:(<'@.'))│(]:(<'@:'))│
> > └───────────┴───────────┴───────────┴───────────┘
> >
> > Moreover, I routinely cloak as verbs all the primitive adverbs and
> > conjunctions using a script containing the pertinent sentences on page 33
> > on the article in the Journal of J referred in the my initial post.
> >
> > I doubt Lev and Dex will be resurrected as [. and ]. because they can be
> > defined easily explicitly and now even tacitly (see,
> > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2014-March/035796.html ).
> > Yet, that is beside the point, it would be safer to define Trigger and
> > Trap as, for instance, [.. and ].. ; but, my understanding is that the
> > implementation becomes more difficult.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> These are good questions.
> >>
> >> I like these questions.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Raul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:22 PM, bill lam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Does the verb Cloak X ]: Y return a non-noun? If so, why ]: is
> >>> not a conjunction?
> >>>
> >>> tokens [. and ]. were previously Lev and Dex, will it be better
> >>> to reserve them for the possible resurrection of Lev and Dex;
> >>> and use other tokens for Trigger and Trap?
> >>>
> >>> Pardon me if my questions are silly.
> >>>
> >>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
