Note, however, that the "top-to-bottom" aspect is coincidental, and that k
and g are not equivalent.
G=: 13 :'%%:-+*:y'
5!:4<'G'
┌─ [:
├─ %
──┤ ┌─ [:
│ ├─ %:
└────┤ ┌─ [:
│ ├─ -
└────┤ ┌─ [:
└────┼─ +
└─ *:
k 9
5.19987e16
g 9
0j_0.111111
G 9
0j_0.111111
(And, as usual, I expect that list readers will have to ensure that they're
using an appropriate (fixed width) font to see the tree displays. I think
the line of responsibility for that issue looks approximately like printing
press tradition -> Knuth -> education system -> Microsoft -> education
system -> Google.)
FYI,
--
Raul
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Brian Schott <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Linda,
>
> Thank you for your f, g, and h examples.
> Together with Henry's long explanations, they helped me better able to
> understand the tree form. I think **now** I can see that the order of
> parsing is from left to right before execution which is from bottom to top.
> I used the fork example tree below to see this as well.
>
> k =: % %: - + *:
> 5!:4 <'k'
> ┌─ %
> ├─ %:
> ──┤ ┌─ -
> └────┼─ +
> └─ *:
>
> g=: 13 :'%@%:@-@+@*:y'
> 5!:4 <'g'
> ┌─ %
> ┌─ @ ─┴─ %:
> ┌─ @ ─┴─ -
> ┌─ @ ─┴─ +
> ── @ ─┴─ *:
>
> Now compare the trees of g and k above. (For purposes of comparison, the
> defined k was constructed with the same order of verbs as the defined g.)
>
> Both the definitions of g and k are unadorned with parentheses and both are
> executed from bottom to top in their respective trees. But whereas g's tree
> is upward sloping, k's is downward sloping and the right to left parsing
> order in the trees describe the opposition of the two.
>
> These relative asymmetries **show** me a little better why you have for a
> long time wanted to concentrate on developing verbs in only one of the two
> ways (using forks and not conjunctions, in your case) to limit complexity.
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Linda A Alvord <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Guess how this tree will look before you look.
> >
> > h=: 13 :'((((%@%:)@-)@+)@*:)y'
> > 5!:4 <'h'
> >
> > Linda
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Programming [mailto:[email protected]] On
> > Behalf Of Linda A Alvord
> > Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 2:01 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] @ and @: (atop and at)
> >
> > Henry, Your explanation of how the conjunctions are parsed helped make
> the
> > tree diagrams make more sense. I gave up my idea.
> >
> >
> >
> > f=: 13 :'(%@(%:@(-@(+@*:))))y'
> >
> > 5!:4 <'f'
> >
> > ┌─ %
> >
> > ── @ ─┤ ┌─ %:
> >
> > └─ @ ─┤ ┌─ -
> >
> > └─ @ ─┤ ┌─ +
> >
> > └─ @ ─┴─ *:
> >
> > g=: 13 :'%@%:@-@+@*:y'
> >
> > 5!:4 <'g'
> >
> > ┌─ %
> >
> > ┌─ @ ─┴─ %:
> >
> > ┌─ @ ─┴─ -
> >
> > ┌─ @ ─┴─ +
> >
> > ── @ ─┴─ *:
> >
> >
> > --
> (B=)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
