A simple project whose benefits are described shortly:
replace (add shaddow names) most of the monadic built-in verbs with ambivalent
definitions that may add extra utility.
count =: # : #@]
all monads have an obviously intuitive dyad alternative of v@], but some monads
can be given additional utility in a way that is still providing the
fundamental function. For instance
iota =: i. : (+ i.)
1 iota 3
1 2 3
roll =: ? : ?@#
5 roll 6
1 1 5 4 2
benefits:
providing extra utility to verbs is nice, but not the main reason.
It would make J more approachable if every verb is a dyad whose monadic
interpretation can be understood as an ommitted default parameter.
Its easier to read tacit code, for instance if iota and i. look different, and
the verbose version is verbose for the specific reason that it is a monad.
Tacit forks would look more like (word symbol word) if they are intended as
monadic forks, but may have dyadic tweaks. examples:
(3 * iota) 3
0 3 6
1 (3 * iota) 3
3 6 9
The above tweak is a practical dyadic variation of essentially the same fork,
whereas with i. in the fork, the dyad use is likely a misapprehension of the
function.
this may be cool too,
1 (iota"0 iota) 4
0 0 0
1 0 0
1 2 0
1 2 3
The main benefit stated more succinctly is that real dyads would look different
than real monads, but overall fewer errors would occur as a result of valence
errors, and it also shortens some code.
details:
% - ^ ^. #. #: ] [ 0: ": j. p: r. p.. are examples of monads that would not get
a shaddow name, because their dyad is already a "default x" implementation.
* %. [: ". I. { ;: may have useful dyad tweaks I can't think of
Some verbs would have weird names
real_imag =: +. : ({ +.)
length_ang =: *. : ({ *.)
these may be bad ideas, but are interesting:
double =: +: : (+:@]^:[) NB. double x times. -:*:
curtail =: }: : (-@[ }. ]) NB. but }:@] would be more useful
do =: ". : (".@(, ' ' , ]))
Another approach is to avoid providing any improvements to the dyadic version
of monadic functions and instead make them all have dyad version of v@]
Assuming that improvements are useful, can you think of any alternate
implementations for ambivalent:
* %. [: ". I. { ;:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
