And the dictionary defines frame.... such that it may be empty? I'm most interested in whether, supposing this is the case, allowing empty frames serve (an)other purpose(s) in the structure of the language.
Apologies if my original phrasing was unclear. Every decision in the design of J seems very deliberate—which I really appreciate. It just seems that empty frames must serve a purpose. Trying to work it out. On 15 Jan 2016 4:21 pm, "bill lam" <[email protected]> wrote: > The J dictionary is always correct. > > Пт, 15 янв 2016, Matthew Baulch написал(а): > > Fair enough, though I can't work out whether the dictionary agrees with > > NuVoc here or not. Either way, which definition of frame is correct? > > On 15 Jan 2016 3:48 pm, "bill lam" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > For J implemention, the only authority is the J dictionary since > > > it defines the J language. You need not worry anything else. > > > > > > http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dictb.htm > > > > > > Пт, 15 янв 2016, Matthew Baulch написал(а): > > > > I assume the intended definition of 'frame', in relation to verb > > > arguments, > > > > is that given on > > > > > > > > http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/FramingFill > > > > > > > > I'm just trying to understand verb/argument combinations with empty > > > > frame--the most common case, I suppose. > > > > > > > > From the wording "each argument is ... an array of [r-cells]. The > frame > > > ... > > > > is the shape of this array of [r-cells]", it seems that a frame > should > > > > never be empty, but in fact have a minimum shape of '1'. Of course, > this > > > > ties into the wording of many other statements. In the case of dyadic > > > > verbs, for instance, > > > > > > > > "frames must agree ... they must be identical or one must be a > prefix of > > > > the other" (stated in link above) > > > > > > > > as opposed to > > > > > > > > "frames must agree ... one must have shape 1 or be a prefix of the > other" > > > > (the way I see it, assuming equality implies prefix-of) > > > > > > > > Can anyone shed some light on this? Is there an important reason for > this > > > > convention that I'm missing, or is it of little consequence? > > > > > > > > I'm implementing (or trying to...) a subset of J for the JVM, and > this is > > > > one little detail that's bothering me. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > Matt Baulch > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > For information about J forums see > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > > > -- > > > regards, > > > ==================================================== > > > GPG key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24 > > > gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4434BAB3 > > > gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --armor --export 4434BAB3 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > -- > regards, > ==================================================== > GPG key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24 > gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4434BAB3 > gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --armor --export 4434BAB3 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
