shorter:
sfork=:(1 : '(4 0 1 5 6 2 3) C. (;: ''@[ @]'') , (1{:: 0{:: u`[)') 1 : 'u`:6'
3 4 (+: + -:) sfork 2 4
Here's a version that will check to see if the tines are in a list of
monads (proof of concept)
buildTrain is a mess to look at
NB. creates and documents a function
NB. could be improved to split out example
NB. or automatically assert on the example
NB. originally from
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2014-July/038316.html
func=: 3 : 0
doc=.(y,'_doc')=: 0 : 0
lines=.dlb each LF cut doc
0!:0 > {: lines
examples=.(y,'_examples')=:3 }. each (#~ (<'ex:') E. 3 {. each [) lines
for_ex. examples do.
ex=.(>ex)
try.
assert ". ex
catch.
smoutput ex , ' failed'
smoutput 'returned '
smoutput ". ex
end.
end.
''
)
monads=: ;: '+: -:'
func 'buildTrain'
adds @[ to the left tine if it's a monad and @] to the right if its a monad
ex: (;: '+: @ [ + -: @ ]') -: ((1 0 1) buildTrain (;: '+: + -:'))
ex: (;: '* + -: @ ]') -: ((0 0 1) buildTrain (;: '* + -:'))
ex: (;: '* + *') -: ((0 0 0) buildTrain (;: '* + *'))
buildTrain=: (([(((<,'@'),(<,'[')),~])^:(0&{::@[)0&{@]) , (1&{@]) ,
([(((<,'@'),(<,']')),~])^:(2&{::@[)2&{@]))
)
func 'sfork'
ex: (16,24) -:(2 4 (+ + +) sfork 6 8) NB. (2+6+2+6) , (4+8+4+8)
ex: (12,20) -:(2 4 (+: + +) sfork 6 8) NB. ((2*2)+2+6) , ((4*2)+4+8)
ex: (16,24) -:(2 4 (+: + +:) sfork 6 8) NB. ((2*2)+(6*2)) , ((4*2)+(8*2))
sfork=: (1 : '(] buildTrain~ (e.&monads)) (1{:: 0{:: u`[)') (1 : 'u`:6')
)
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Joe Bogner <joebog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, that is clever but not too mysterious. I also went down the path
> of trying to get the linear representation of u but got stuck because
> 5!:5 expects a name. I didn't think to assign a local name.
>
> This was also cool and the piece I was missing to gerundify u
>
> (+: + -:) (1 : '0{:: u`[')
> ┌─┬─────────┐
> │3│┌──┬─┬──┐│
> │ ││+:│+│-:││
> │ │└──┴─┴──┘│
> └─┴─────────┘
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here's a draft implementation of what I think you mean by a "smart fork":
>>
>> NB. draft
>> sfork=:1 :0
>> impl=. 0 {:: u`-
>> if. (<,'3')-:{.impl do.
>> d=. 5!:1@<
>> e=. 5!:0
>> '`a b c'=. 1 {:: impl
>> (d'a')e@[ (d'b')e (d'c')e@]
>> end.
>> )
>>
>> Example use:
>> (+-*)sfork
>> +@[ - *@]
>>
>> Hopefully that's not too mysterious?
>>
>> Basically, it's taking the gerund of its argument (which it assumes is
>> a verb or an atomic representation of a verb), and if that represents
>> a fork, it's extracting the three verbs from the fork and slapping a
>> @[ on the left tine and a @] on the right tine.
>>
>> Anyways, I've occasionally also itched for something like this. But
>> the definition is big enough that I never bother.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Raul
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Joe Bogner <joebog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
