I think you want http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/d310n.htm
Especially points 4 and 5. But I actually haven't found anything that suggests that x and y are analogs for u and v when u and v are not used. I think that might be pure backwards compatibility (which suggests it should be treated in am manner analogous to 9!:48 and 9!:49). Thanks, -- Raul On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Joe Bogner <[email protected]> wrote: > Speaking of x and y, u and m... Is there a cheat sheet for them and the > rules? > > A rule being " you have referenced x and y without u or m. " > > Some places I've looked: > 1. http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dictc.htm (very light) > 2. http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Vocabulary/Modifiers > 3. > > http://www.jsoftware.com/help/jforc/loopless_code_ii_adverbs__an.htm#_Toc191734359 > 4. http://www.jsoftware.com/help/learning/13.htm > 5. > > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/MarkusSchmidtGroettrup?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=j_schnell_referenz_20070616.pdf > (page six) > > #2 and #4 are probably the best I've found so far > > I was working this morning and couldn't remember the rules so I started to > write each permutation as > > 1 (2 : 'smoutput x;y') 2 > 1 (2 : 'smoutput u;v;y') 2 'a' > 10 (2 : 'u v 2') + > 10 (2 : 'u v y') + 3 > > ... > > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Oh, duh -- copy and paste coding, and I stripped out the 'm'. > > > > I guess I'd like a default "braindead" mode for when I am recovering from > > being ill (like today) or very tired. > > > > (This would issue domain errors at define time if x and y are being > > promoted to u/v significance.) > > > > I'm not sure how hard that would be to implement, however. > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > Raul > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:48 AM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > you have reference x and y without u or m. There is a global setting > (6! > > > or 9! something) to turn this off I think. I don't see why you are > using > > > an adverb here. > > > > > > on another note: > > > > > > bind > > > 2 : 'x@(y"_)' > > > > > > is there any case where the definition 2 : 'u@(v"_)' would fail or > > > produce a different result? > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Raul Miller <[email protected]> > > > To: Programming forum <[email protected]> > > > Cc: > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:29 AM > > > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] what is happening here? > > > > > > Worse... I work around this... whatever it is.. by changing the > > definition: > > > > > > $ ijconsole > > > appendbox=:1 : 0 > > > y > > > : > > > pfx=. ,1 4{.y > > > assert. pfx-:,_1 4{.y > > > if. ' ' e. pfx do. '' return. end. > > > prefix=. (2{.pfx),'/',pfx > > > dir=: 'Reference/',prefix > > > (;x,&.>LF) fileappend dir,'/data06.txt' > > > ) > > > 1 'a' appendbox 2 > > > |value error: y > > > | y > > > 9!:14'' > > > j701/2011-01-10/11:25 > > > > > > > > > How can I be getting a value error on y? Why is the monadic definition > > > being used in the dyadic case? How can I get anything done when things > > are > > > this crazy? > > > > > > Can anyone else reproduce this? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -- > > > Raul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I paste a definition into my J session: > > > > > > > > appendbox=:1 :0 > > > > : > > > > pfx=. ,1 4{.y > > > > assert. pfx-:,_1 4{.y > > > > if. ' ' e. pfx do. '' return. end. > > > > prefix=. (2{.pfx),'/',pfx > > > > dir=: 'Reference/',prefix > > > > (;x,&.>LF) fileappend dir,'/data06.txt' > > > > ) > > > > > > > > And then I inspect the name > > > > > > > > appendbox > > > > 1 : 0 > > > > pfx=. ,1 4{.y > > > > assert. pfx-:,_1 4{.y > > > > if. ' ' e. pfx do. '' return. end. > > > > prefix=. (2{.pfx),'/',pfx > > > > dir=: 'Reference/',prefix > > > > (;x,&.>LF) fileappend dir,'/data06.txt' > > > > ) > > > > > > > > Somehow my adverb has mutated. > > > > > > > > What is going on here? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Raul > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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
