On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Joe Bogner <[email protected]> wrote:
> If I type cocurrent 'base' , I would assume cocurrent is the
> currently executing named verb and it switched to base after the end
> of cocurrent
>
> Given that understanding, why would it switch back at the end of the
> explicit definition? Is that behavior documented somewhere?
Because each name has an execution context which includes the locale
it's using for name resolution.
It's probably documented somewhere, but I don't have time to look that
up right now.
>> You either need to use ([ cocurrent bind 'base') instead of sb, or use
>> 18!:4 in sb .
>>
>
> I had forgotten about bind
>
> ([ cocurrent@('base'"_1)) 2
>
> http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/quotem
>
> I typically use & to bind parameters. & cannot be used on cocurrent
> because it's monadic, is that the correct interpretation?
Basically, yes.
1: : 2: &3 ''
2
You'll get the dyadic definition of cocurrent, which is empty.
> Is there a way to determine the valence of a tacit verb?
If you are unclear on the syntax, you can use dissect and/or trace to
help you understand it. It can help, of course, to review dictionary
entries on any adverbs or conjunctions you're using.
But all verbs are ambivalent (though possibly with empty definitions
for one or both syntactic cases). To understand that side of things, I
guess I'd read the dictionary (or nuvoc) for the primitives or read
the definition and/or documentation and/or experiment and/or ask here
on the forums, for proverbs.
Thanks,
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
