Interesting. I'm not sure if M is worth it over @] due to potential
naming conflicts and ambiguity in the code .@] is very clear
It got me thinking that it might be interesting (albeit probably not
overly useful) to have a 'smart fork' adverb that could figure out
that its arguments are monadic and bind them appropriately
This starts to show what I mean
fork=:(2 : 'u@[ + v@]')
3 4 (+: fork -:) 2 4
7 10
The + would need to be extracted, so it would need to be
3 4 (+: + -:) fork 2 4
I don't think that's possible without using gerunds..
fork=: (1 :'(0{:: u);''@'';''['';(1&{::u);(2{:: u);''@'';'']''') (1 : 'u `:6')
+:`+`-: fork
+:@[ + -:@]
3 4 +:`+`-: fork 2 4
7 10
fork could be enhanced to detect whether the tines are monadic and
only apply the @[ and @] if so
not sure how useful it is, but fun to play with
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:11 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
<programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
> Here is another approach to simplifying J and meeting dyadic J goals without
> verb definitions:
>
> M =: @]
>
>
> 3 4 (+:M~ + -:M) 2 4
> 7 10
> (+: M~ + -: M) 2 4
> 5 10
>
>
>
> ~ (swap) basically works like @[ on a monad that is defined to ignore x
> rather than return error.
>
> M or M~ is easier to type than @:] or @:[ too.
>
>
> T =: &{(>@)
> NB. double adverb version of @:
> at =: 1 : 'u 1 :''2 : ''''u (v@:) '''' u'''
>
>
>
>
> 3 2 (1 T M~ + 0 1 T M +: at) 2 3 4
> 6 8
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jose Mario Quintana <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com>
> To: Programming forum <programm...@jsoftware.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 11:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] dyadic J
>
> Pascal wrote:
>
> "There is a addon called general/primitives that provides shadow names for
> everything."
>
> However, trying to provide a shadow name for $: is futile.
>
>
> Pascal wrote:
>
> 'A recent point of conversion of mine is that u@:v is both easier to read
> and edit/expand and easier to see subresults by cutting out parts of an @
> train "s@t@u@v" even if its u@:(v) compared to [: u v.'
>
> Welcome to a very exclusive club ;)
>
>
> Linda wrote:
> "
> Pascal and others. I am curious to know if you find tacit code easy to read.
>
> cr=:([ = [: +/ [: |: #~ #: [: i. ^) #"2 #~ #: [: i. ^
> divy=:([: ,. [: <"1 '*' $~ ] ,~ [: <. %) , [: < '*' $~ [ - ] * [: <. %
>
> Those two tacit lines seem hard to translate for me. Instead I find the
> expressions below are quite easy to follow.
>
> cr=: 13 :'(x= +/ |:(y#x)#:i.x^y) #"2 (y#x)#:i.x^y'
> divy=: 13 :'(,.<"1((<.x%y),y)$''*''),<(x-y*<.x%y)$''*'''
> "
>
> I submit that it is a matter of familiarity. Granted, forum members are
> likely more familiar with explicit rather than tacit reading and writing
> (then again, most programmers are more familiar with one element at a time
> as opposed to array processing).
>
> Personally, armed with the boxed representation of a verb, I can typically
> see effortlessly how the data flows given a tacit verb and its
> argument(s). This does not surprise me since the interpreter’s
> representation of a verb is closely related to the boxed representation (if
> I recall correctly).
>
> Moreover, tacit forms facilitate the manual, or automatic, symbolic
> manipulation and simplification of tacit forms. For example,
>
> cr=:([ = [: +/ [: |: #~ #: [: i. ^) #"2 #~ #: [: i. ^
>
> cr
> ([ = [: +/ [: |: #~ #: [: i. ^) #"2 #~ #: [: i. ^
> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┬───────┬────────────────────┐
> │┌─┬─┬───────────────────────────────────────┐│┌─┬─┬─┐│┌─────┬──┬─────────┐│
> ││[│=│┌──┬─────┬────────────────────────────┐│││#│"│2│││┌─┬─┐│#:│┌──┬──┬─┐││
> ││ │ ││[:│┌─┬─┐│┌──┬──┬────────────────────┐│││└─┴─┴─┘│││#│~││ ││[:│i.│^│││
> ││ │ ││ ││+│/│││[:│|:│┌─────┬──┬─────────┐││││ ││└─┴─┘│ │└──┴──┴─┘││
> ││ │ ││ │└─┴─┘││ │ ││┌─┬─┐│#:│┌──┬──┬─┐│││││ │└─────┴──┴─────────┘│
> ││ │ ││ │ ││ │ │││#│~││ ││[:│i.│^││││││ │ │
> ││ │ ││ │ ││ │ ││└─┴─┘│ │└──┴──┴─┘│││││ │ │
> ││ │ ││ │ ││ │ │└─────┴──┴─────────┘││││ │ │
> ││ │ ││ │ │└──┴──┴────────────────────┘│││ │ │
> ││ │ │└──┴─────┴────────────────────────────┘││ │ │
> │└─┴─┴───────────────────────────────────────┘│ │ │
> └─────────────────────────────────────────────┴───────┴────────────────────┘
>
> NB. Regardless of the nature of the arguments...
>
> NB. Automatically,
>
> cr f. decap ala NB. Wicked Jx adverbs for decapitating and associating
> @:s to the left
> ([ = +/@:|:@:(#~ #: i.@:^)) #"2 #~ #: i.@:^
> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┬───────┬────────────────────┐
> │┌─┬─┬───────────────────────────────────────┐│┌─┬─┬─┐│┌─────┬──┬─────────┐│
> ││[│=│┌─────────────┬──┬────────────────────┐│││#│"│2│││┌─┬─┐│#:│┌──┬──┬─┐││
> ││ │ ││┌─────┬──┬──┐│@:│┌─────┬──┬─────────┐│││└─┴─┴─┘│││#│~││ ││i.│@:│^│││
> ││ │ │││┌─┬─┐│@:│|:││ ││┌─┬─┐│#:│┌──┬──┬─┐││││ ││└─┴─┘│ │└──┴──┴─┘││
> ││ │ ││││+│/││ │ ││ │││#│~││ ││i.│@:│^│││││ │└─────┴──┴─────────┘│
> ││ │ │││└─┴─┘│ │ ││ ││└─┴─┘│ │└──┴──┴─┘││││ │ │
> ││ │ ││└─────┴──┴──┘│ │└─────┴──┴─────────┘│││ │ │
> ││ │ │└─────────────┴──┴────────────────────┘││ │ │
> │└─┴─┴───────────────────────────────────────┘│ │ │
> └─────────────────────────────────────────────┴───────┴────────────────────┘
>
> NB. Manually,
>
> [ (([ = +/@:|:@:]) #"2 ]) #~ #: i.@:^ NB. Distributing (#~ #: i.@:^)
> [ (([ = +/@:|:@:]) #"2 ]) #~ #: i.@:^
> ┌─┬──────────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────┐
> │[│┌──────────────────────────┬───────┬─┐│┌─────┬──┬─────────┐│
> │ ││┌─┬─┬────────────────────┐│┌─┬─┬─┐│]│││┌─┬─┐│#:│┌──┬──┬─┐││
> │ │││[│=│┌─────────────┬──┬─┐│││#│"│2││ ││││#│~││ ││i.│@:│^│││
> │ │││ │ ││┌─────┬──┬──┐│@:│]│││└─┴─┴─┘│ │││└─┴─┘│ │└──┴──┴─┘││
> │ │││ │ │││┌─┬─┐│@:│|:││ │ │││ │ ││└─────┴──┴─────────┘│
> │ │││ │ ││││+│/││ │ ││ │ │││ │ ││ │
> │ │││ │ │││└─┴─┘│ │ ││ │ │││ │ ││ │
> │ │││ │ ││└─────┴──┴──┘│ │ │││ │ ││ │
> │ │││ │ │└─────────────┴──┴─┘││ │ ││ │
> │ ││└─┴─┴────────────────────┘│ │ ││ │
> │ │└──────────────────────────┴───────┴─┘│ │
> └─┴──────────────────────────────────────┴────────────────────┘
>
> [ (( = +/@:|: ) #"2 ]) #~ #: i.@:^ NB. Hook form
> [ ((= +/@:|:) #"2 ]) #~ #: i.@:^
> ┌─┬─────────────────────────────┬────────────────────┐
> │[│┌─────────────────┬───────┬─┐│┌─────┬──┬─────────┐│
> │ ││┌─┬─────────────┐│┌─┬─┬─┐│]│││┌─┬─┐│#:│┌──┬──┬─┐││
> │ │││=│┌─────┬──┬──┐│││#│"│2││ ││││#│~││ ││i.│@:│^│││
> │ │││ ││┌─┬─┐│@:│|:│││└─┴─┴─┘│ │││└─┴─┘│ │└──┴──┴─┘││
> │ │││ │││+│/││ │ │││ │ ││└─────┴──┴─────────┘│
> │ │││ ││└─┴─┘│ │ │││ │ ││ │
> │ │││ │└─────┴──┴──┘││ │ ││ │
> │ ││└─┴─────────────┘│ │ ││ │
> │ │└─────────────────┴───────┴─┘│ │
> └─┴─────────────────────────────┴────────────────────┘
>
> NB. Given the nature of the arguments...
>
> [ (( = +/@:|: ) # ]) #~ #: i.@:^ NB. Redundant "2
> [ ((= +/@:|:) # ]) #~ #: i.@:^
> ┌─┬───────────────────────┬────────────────────┐
> │[│┌─────────────────┬─┬─┐│┌─────┬──┬─────────┐│
> │ ││┌─┬─────────────┐│#│]│││┌─┬─┐│#:│┌──┬──┬─┐││
> │ │││=│┌─────┬──┬──┐││ │ ││││#│~││ ││i.│@:│^│││
> │ │││ ││┌─┬─┐│@:│|:│││ │ │││└─┴─┘│ │└──┴──┴─┘││
> │ │││ │││+│/││ │ │││ │ ││└─────┴──┴─────────┘│
> │ │││ ││└─┴─┘│ │ │││ │ ││ │
> │ │││ │└─────┴──┴──┘││ │ ││ │
> │ ││└─┴─────────────┘│ │ ││ │
> │ │└─────────────────┴─┴─┘│ │
> └─┴───────────────────────┴────────────────────┘
>
> [ (( = +/"1 ) # ]) #~ #: i.@:^ NB. Summing the rows of a matrix
> [ ((= +/"1) # ]) #~ #: i.@:^
> ┌─┬─────────────────────┬────────────────────┐
> │[│┌───────────────┬─┬─┐│┌─────┬──┬─────────┐│
> │ ││┌─┬───────────┐│#│]│││┌─┬─┐│#:│┌──┬──┬─┐││
> │ │││=│┌─────┬─┬─┐││ │ ││││#│~││ ││i.│@:│^│││
> │ │││ ││┌─┬─┐│"│1│││ │ │││└─┴─┘│ │└──┴──┴─┘││
> │ │││ │││+│/││ │ │││ │ ││└─────┴──┴─────────┘│
> │ │││ ││└─┴─┘│ │ │││ │ ││ │
> │ │││ │└─────┴─┴─┘││ │ ││ │
> │ ││└─┴───────────┘│ │ ││ │
> │ │└───────────────┴─┴─┘│ │
> └─┴─────────────────────┴────────────────────┘
>
> This latter form is the capless counterpart of the version provided by
> Lippu Esa.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:27 AM, Linda A Alvord <lindaalv...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Pascal and others. I am curious to know if you find tacit code easy to
>> read.
>>
>> cr=:([ = [: +/ [: |: #~ #: [: i. ^) #"2 #~ #: [: i. ^
>> divy=:([: ,. [: <"1 '*' $~ ] ,~ [: <. %) , [: < '*' $~ [ - ] * [: <. %
>>
>> Those two tacit lines seem hard to translate for me. Instead I find the
>> expressions below are quite easy to follow.
>>
>> cr=: 13 :'(x= +/ |:(y#x)#:i.x^y) #"2 (y#x)#:i.x^y'
>> divy=: 13 :'(,.<"1((<.x%y),y)$''*''),<(x-y*<.x%y)$''*'''
>>
>> In most cases, with examples there is little documentation that is
>> necessary.
>>
>> 2 cr 5
>> 0 0 0 1 1
>> 0 0 1 0 1
>> 0 0 1 1 0
>> 0 1 0 0 1
>> 0 1 0 1 0
>> 0 1 1 0 0
>> 1 0 0 0 1
>> 1 0 0 1 0
>> 1 0 1 0 0
>> 1 1 0 0 0
>> 18 divy 5
>> ------┐
>> │*****│
>> +-----+
>> │*****│
>> +-----+
>> │*****│
>> +-----+
>> │*** │
>> L------
>> Maybe it is just that the explicit code looks like mathematics. It might be
>> interesting and useful to hear how programmers and J users read code most
>> easily.
>>
>> Linda
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com
>> [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Don Kelly
>> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 10:37 PM
>> To: programm...@jsoftware.com
>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] dyadic J
>>
>> there is nothing wrong with saying something like plus =: + conjugate =:+
>> and knowing that plus is intended to be monadic (although +(real
>> number) is the real number in either case. If you want one to work as
>> monadic onlyand the other as dyadic only-then you have to dress them up a
>> bit with some test and error message.
>> you can do mean=: sum divideby count in any language.
>> J has 2 meanings for + -which are dependent on the context. English also
>> is
>> like that in that some words have two unrelated meanings (e.g bow , can,
>> twig, butt ) as well as having some with related meanings (e.g rise, level)
>> and a lot of other things that depend on context It would be possible to
>> build up a long list of names so that all uses of the primitives have
>> different names and do just what the names indicate but is that of any more
>> than limited use?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/27/2015 1:08 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
>> > Are you saying that if I define
>> >
>> > floor =: (<. : (<.@]))"0 _ 0
>> >
>> > that it does not have integrated rank support?
>> >
>> > The criticism about english and documentation seems hollow to me. I
>> don't
>> say that Nuvoc is useless because it hasn't been implemented in 150
>> languages. An ability to read the dictionary in English is essential to
>> learn J, and code typically uses english shaddows from profile.ijs. Making
>> foreign language cover verbs including autotranslating the english ones is
>> straightforward, and answers that part of the criticism. Using the exact
>> names from the dictionary (what I'm refering to as autodocumentation
>> because
>> the exact same place you would look up i. is where iota will be explained.)
>> seems like an elegant way to ease a shallow learning curve on the process.
>> >
>> > The entire criticism could be applied to "you should never assign a verb
>> to any name"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com>
>> > To: Programming forum <programm...@jsoftware.com>
>> > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 3:27 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] dyadic J
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:12 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
>> > <programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
>> >> The only disadvantage I recognize is the point about special code.
>> > It would be interesting to go over the reasons you do not recognize
>> > the other disadvantages.
>> >
>> >> As to your other points, because the primitives are tacit, I believe
>> there is integrated rank support.
>> >>
>> >> floor b. 0
>> >> 0 _ _
>> > You might want to read
>> > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/1998-October/000041.html
>> >
>> > All verbs have rank support, even verbs which contain explicit
>> > definitions. However, for some combinations of primitives, the
>> > interpreter takes special steps - bypassing the default implementation
>> > of rank support with something more efficient.
>> >
>> >> English is needed to read dictionary, and all of the primitives are the
>> monad dictionary entries, so everything is autodocumented.
>> > In my experience, documentation is difficult and autodocumentation
>> > quickly falls victim to entropy. It sounds great, but most examples I
>> > have seen become incredibly useless in practice. It's possible to work
>> > around this with manual effort, but the effort involved often seems to
>> > be greater than the effort of simply doing it manually in the first
>> > place. Where automation shines is replicating the useful manual
>> > efforts.
>> >
>> >> The advantage bigger than the one you mentioned is better seeing the
>> intent of code.
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> > 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
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
