I try to do things by myself first. I couldn't change to upper and saw it in e-mail. I never thought about "each" and just got my result to do what I was trying to do.
I didn't notice the added space in my result. Linda -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ric Sherlock Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 6:20 AM To: Programming JForum Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Design goals readability and write ability? Linda, Note that <"1 toupper"0>"0;:'alpha beta gamma' is not equivalent to toupper each ;:'alpha beta gamma' Is the motivation for rewriting the sentence to remove the &. in each or just playing to understand? On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Linda Alvord <[email protected]> wrote: > What if we never needed NuVoc because each verb would tell you it's > definition is if you happened to ask? > > <"1 toupper"0>"0;:'alpha beta gamma' > ┌─────┬─────┬─────┐ > │ALPHA│BETA │GAMMA│ > └─────┴─────┴─────┘ > > toupper > 3 : 0 > x=. I. 26 > n=. ((97+i.26){a.) i. t=. ,y > ($y) $ ((x{n) { (65+i.26){a.) x}t > ) > each > &.> > ^ > ^ > &. > &. > > Children learn words. Then nouns and verbs. Sentences come later. > Reading becomes easier. Harder books are read. > Herder words are learned. But you don't need to translate each word in a > sentence for a skilled reader. > > So my thinking about learning J is just learn more words. Look then up > and study them when you don't understand them. Ken loved the Webster's > Unabridged Dictionary and seemed to have read every page! Just keep > reading and you will write better. > > So someday could we just enter > </\ in J and have it tell us what it > thinks it is? > > Linda > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Tracy Harms > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 8:21 PM > To: Programming forum > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Design goals readability and writeability? > > Erling Hellenäs, > > I don't doubt you like simplified programs where redundancies or other > unnecessary things have been removed. So do I. > > What I don't know how to do is use adverbs or conjunctions as padding. I > also don't understand what you have in mind when you say they are sometimes > used as padding. > > -- > T > On Jul 14, 2014 8:01 PM, "Erling Hellenäs" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I very much appreciate these operators when they are needed. When only > > used as padding they seem like a huge complication both for readability > and > > writeability. /Erling > > > > On 2014-07-15 01:03, Tracy Harms wrote: > > > >> Erling Hellenäs, > >> > >> It doesn't take much to get a set of language features that make all > other > >> language features technically unnecessary or redundant. This comes with > >> computational universality, as sketched here: > >> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing-complete > >> > >> What makes it attractive to see verb trains as fundamental is the way > they > >> have been tied to lexical adjacency. This is among the most noteworthy > >> aspects of the design of J as a language. Verb trains are incredibly > easy > >> to create because they rely mainly on adjacency (and the absence of > nouns > >> in the role of arguments to verbs, which also involves adjacency rules.) > >> > >> Where do we get this idea that verb trains are "fundamental" while > >> modifiers (a.k.a. operators, if we follow Heaviside) are ancillary? What > >> most accommodates that notion is Cap, which is one of relatively few > >> irregularities in a language that (in part) came out of an effort to > >> rationalize, i.e. remove inconsistencies. With Cap set aside the role of > >> modifiers becomes clear, to my view. I advise contemplating the > qualities > >> of tacit J without Cap, for awhile. > >> > >> -- > >> Tracy Harms > >> On Jul 13, 2014 11:33 AM, "Erling Hellenäs" <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >> It is not possible to reformulate the verb trains with caps so that > most > >>> of the &'s and @'s are no longer needed? So that it is shown they had > no > >>> actual function? /Erling > >>> > >>> On 2014-07-13 17:20, Tracy Harms wrote: > >>> > >>> On Jul 13, 2014 6:41 AM, "Erling Hellenäs" <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Most of the &'s and @'s are written not because they are needed > >>>>> as operators, but are used only as padding, to avoid the othervise > >>>>> automatic creation of hooks and forks? > >>>>> > >>>>> No. It seems inaccurate to call that "padding." They apply at a > >>>> meta-level. > >>>> They do not interfere with the formation of verb trains, they > contribute > >>>> to > >>>> the formation of verb trains. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> T > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> 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 > >> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
