> Jose's Cloak function is a good solution for modifiers that take nouns
Pepe, you're perverting our flock with your heresies! -Dan PS: Cloak, partially a product of my own twisted experiments, is an abomination. At least until we change the DoJ to permit it. (No, Pepe, I don't buy the argument that "Well, it doesn't say verbs CAN'T return conjunctions ... " ;) > On Mar 30, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Pascal Jasmin <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not sure how that would improve " but its not clear how you want to use > boxed y. The limitation of not being able to apply to modifiers would remain. > > Jose's Cloak function is a good solution for modifiers that take nouns. Even > without Cloak, some modifiers can be rewritten as verbs: > > evoke6 =: 4 : 'x `:6 y' > > I'm not sure how well Cloak works with modifiers that take verbs, but I > suspect that if you need rank or other modifiers to work with them, you could > rewrite them to take atomic representation arguments. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Raul Miller <[email protected]> > To: Programming forum <[email protected]> > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 2:24:15 PM > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Item amend ~: index error. > > Let's imagine > > Rank=:2 :0 > NB. u: verb > NB. n: noun (list of numbers) > NB. y: boxed nown > ... > ) > > Here, #n must be at least 1 1.5 0.5&p.#y > > u is applied at rank specified by n {~ (i. + _1 0.5 0.5 p. ])@# y to the > contents of the boxes of y. > > Would this be practical? Yes and no... for some small problems and for > illustrative purposes a straightforward J implementation would work great. > This could also serve, for some people, as an example of how rank "really > works". But for larger problems it would be a pain to use, and something > closer to more classical APL might be a better approach. > > If we had good J compilers, that would open up some additional options and > make some of those cases be significantly more efficient. And writing such > a compiler might be a fun student project (for the right kind of class). > But efficiency is often a misleading issue and reasoning about it is often > contradicted by experience. > > Let me know if you want me to draft up an implementation (of Rank, not of > good J compilers - Rank is something that would take maybe an hour to > implement, a good compiler takes longer). (And, I've got other things I'm > working on today.) > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > > >> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I recommend cultivating a skepticism of the thought "this is a bug in J". >> It's a thought-stopping reaction, and almost always wrong. >> >> That's not to say J has no bugs: no, I mean "almost always" in the >> measure-theoretical sense; while I've found plenty of bugs in J, their >> number ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
