(3;4)"_ or anything boxed could look like a gerund.
----- Original Message ----- From: Henry Rich <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] How m"n shoulda been defined Yes, it would be quite rare for m to look like a legitimate gerund in old code. Henry Rich On 8/10/2015 7:38 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > You are, of course, correct. Rank that was a misnomer for rank items, > which I think is what Pascal had in mind, and I should have presented it as > an adverb. That is (I am including the full tacit Calvinian definition of > invoke for completeness; but, the explicit one from the other thread should > work as well), > > an=.<@:((,'0') ,&< ]) NB. Atomizing nouns (or words in general) > evoke=. (<'`:')(0:`)(,^:) NB. Verbing evoke (`:) > > invoke=. <@:(evoke&0)@:[ (evoke&6)@:, an@:] > > ri=. &(($~ #@]) invoke f."_1 ]) NB. Rank items (adv) > > (-:`+:) ri i.3 4 > 0 0.5 1 1.5 > 8 10 12 14 > 4 4.5 5 5.5 > (-:`+:`*:)ri i.3 4 > 0 0.5 1 1.5 > 8 10 12 14 > 64 81 100 121 > > A model for the rank (") conjunction, that should have been, is somewhat > more complicated. Even modeling the case n"m when m is a single rank > instead of more would require extra effort. One could write an explicit or > even a tacit version (in the form of an adverb) but I will pass because all > the above only strengthens your point that rank should have been defined > the way you are suggesting; it might be even easier, for someone familiar > with the source code, to modify its definition instead and be done with it, > albeit sacrificing some backward compatibility. > > Yet, it seems to me that we could almost have it both ways: For the form > (m"n), test whether or not m is a gerund, if it is use the new meaning > otherwise use the old one. The only hole would the very rare case where > verbing a gerund is wanted and in that case one could use the form (&])… > Does it make sense? > > We might give it a try as another Jx extension; Jx is not a new language > but a permissive J dialect. It would not be entirely backward compatible > but ultimately, strictly speaking, no extension is (due to the availability > of the adverse (::) conjunction). > > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes. >> >> In general, we want the gerund to apply to cells of specified rank, not >> just items. >> >> >> Henry Rich >> >> >> On 8/9/2015 9:01 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: >> >>> Rank=. ($~ #@]) invoke f."_1 ] >>> >>> (-:`+:) Rank i.3 4 >>> 0 0.5 1 1.5 >>> 8 10 12 14 >>> 4 4.5 5 5.5 >>> >>> (-:`+:`*:) Rank i.3 4 >>> 0 0.5 1 1.5 >>> 8 10 12 14 >>> 64 81 100 121 >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 7:58 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The alternatives to m"n aren't terrible. We have all made sensible >>>> workarounds. >>>> >>>> Of those workarounds, I strongly prefer # to $ as the selector. >>>> >>>> posting new definitions that saddly won't work unless definitions from >>>> other thread are gattered, >>>> >>>> lvProcsRest =: (1 : '(> {: m) eval }: m') >>>> >>>> lvProcsStrand =: 'lrS lvProcsRest eval' aatrainaltMs =: ('apply every~ >>>> (', ') $~#',~ lr ) lvProcsStrand >>>> >>>> 9: -: +: altMs >>>> apply&>~ ((<;._1 ' (-:) (+:)') $~ #) >>>> >>>> This seems to me to be the most likely thing to want >>>> >>>> 9: -: +: *: altMs"1 i.3 4 >>>> 0 2 4 1.5 >>>> 2 10 36 3.5 >>>> 4 18 100 5.5 >>>> >>>> >>>> 9: -: +: *: altMs i.3 4 >>>> 0 0.5 1 1.5 >>>> 8 10 12 14 >>>> 64 81 100 121 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Raul Miller <[email protected]> >>>> To: Programming forum <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: >>>> Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2015 7:08 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] How m"n shoulda been defined >>>> >>>> I'm still not clear on what "apply the selected verb to each cell" means >>>> here. >>>> >>>> Which of these three cases should be the consequence of (+`-"1 i.3 4) >>>> and why is that the right choice? >>>> >>>> length error >>>> >>>> 1 _1 1*i.3 4 >>>> >>>> 1 _1 1 _1*"1 i.3 4 >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Raul >>>> -- >>>> Raul >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The rank of those verbs doesn't enter into it. >>>>> >>>>> +`-;.2 for example means 'partition y, then apply the selected verb to >>>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>>> partition'. >>>>> >>>>> Same with +`|."2 y for example. Break y into 2-cells, then apply the >>>>> selected verb to each cell. >>>>> >>>>> Henry Rich >>>>> >>>>> On 8/9/2015 6:38 PM, Raul Miller wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hmm... but what should the effect be when the verbs in the gerund are >>>>>> not rank zero? >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> 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
