This is a puzzle for adverbial tacit writing fans: Write a purist tacit adverb (sf1) such that, for example,
JVERSION Installer: j602a_win.exe Engine: j803/2014-10-19-11:11:11 Library: 6.02.023 (v0 v1 v2)sf1 v0@[ v1 v2@] 3 4 (+: + -:)sf1 2 4 7 10 A solution based on a general approach, outlined in the message below, follows after the countdown: http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2014-February/035416.html (look for "workhorse") . ,. |. i. 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NB. Defining the utility adverb av... ar=. 5!:1@< (a0=. `'') (a1=. (@:[) ((<'&')`) (`:6)) (a2=. (`(<(":0);_)) (`:6)) av=. ((ar'a0')`) (`(ar'a1')) (`(ar'a2') ) (`:6) NB. Adverbing a monadic verb (adv) assert 1 4 9 -: 1 2 3 *: adv NB. Defining the workhorse... fg=. (0;1)&{:: NB. Fetching the gerund (u0=. 0 { ])(u1=. 1 { ])(u2=. 2 { ]) NB. Right froming the verbs (at=. 0 { [)(left=. 1 { [)(right=. 2 { [) NB. Left froming the words workhorse=. (;:'@[]') (u0,at,left,u1,u2,at,right"_) fg NB. Defining the adverb... sf1=. workhorse f.av (`:6) PS. WARNING: http://posercontent.com/props-for-poser-and-daz-studio/wicked-spells However, I still prefer, to fire a Jx interpreter, load lambda and ... JVERSION Installer: j602a_win.exe Engine: j701/2014-10-14/10:02/x/wd Library: 6.02.023 sf=. [: u0 u1 u2 (u0@[ u1 u2@]) lambda ( It is easy to type :) ) v0 v1 v2 sf v0@[ v1 v2@] 3 4 +: + -:sf 2 4 7 10 On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Jose Mario Quintana < [email protected]> wrote: > Raul writes: > > " > Also straightforward would be this adverb. > > lambda= 3 : > " > > lambda = 3 : > |value error: lambda > | lambda=3 : > > Did you mean the following? > > lambda=. 3 : > > If so, > > sf=. [: u0 u1 u2 (u0@[ u1 u2@]) lambda > |domain error: lambda > | sf=.[:u0 u1 u2 (u0@[u1 u2@])lambda > > I am afraid our understandings of "equivalent" are somewhat different. (I > would move this to chat but I do not subscribe to that forum.) > > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Jose Mario Quintana < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Regarding the first release of Jx see [0]. >> >> Personally, regardless of the availability of Jx, as I said, I prefer in >> this kind of case, an adverb using strand notation, and one should be able >> to produce it using an official J (Pascal might give it a try); >> furthermore, one should also be able to produce the equivalent of the >> adverb lambda which I have found to be quite handy. (I just do not have a >> reason to try). >> >> [0] [Jprogramming] J Extensions >> >> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2014-March/035925.html >> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Jose Mario Quintana >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > I would rather use strand notation (a multiple adverb). Using Jx and >>> the >>> > adverb lambda mentioned in [0] is straightforward: >>> >>> Personally, I don't even remember where to download Jx - nor do I know >>> where to find docs on how it differs from the official implementation, >>> nor do I know what naming scheme to use in the OS to keep it (and its >>> versions) straight with the official versions. >>> >>> Any suggestions? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -- >>> Raul >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>> >> >> > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Jose Mario Quintana < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I would rather use strand notation (a multiple adverb). Using Jx and the >> adverb lambda mentioned in [0] is straightforward: >> >> sf=. [: u0 u1 u2 (u0@[ u1 u2@]) lambda >> +: + -:sf >> +:@[ + -:@] >> >> 3 4 +: + -:sf 2 4 >> 7 10 >> >> type'sf' >> ┌──────┐ >> │adverb│ >> └──────┘ >> >> [0] [Jprogramming] Can whatever be written tacitly? >> >> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015-February/041130.html >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
