Yeah, I hope no one thought that all J primitives should be defined this way - that would be worse than useless.
It's also the case that such definitions tend to be better "frozen" than "mutable". However, there's a few "primitives" which are mostly just J expressions already. Anyways, it's a possibility. Thanks, -- Raul On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes to (0). > > To (1), be careful: too much generality could have severe performance > effects. I would need to take a long time before deciding that the > operation of + should be defined in a script. > > Henry Rich > > On 4/25/2015 9:26 PM, Raul Miller wrote: >> >> Hypothetically speaking, it would be possible to implement J with >> certain primitives defined "at run time" by delegating their >> implementation to some name in some locale. >> >> For that matter, we could design the interpreter to treat its >> executable as an archive (like maybe a zip file) with some !: command >> to execute a named element from the archive as a script. Once we have >> that, it becomes straightforward to do a variety of things with J... >> >> Thanks, >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
