At ;east now I expect f@:g and [:f g to agree. That is not the case with @ (and it even makes sense, finally)
Linda -----Original Message----- From: Programming [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Raul Miller Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 1:43 PM To: Programming forum Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] @ and @: (atop and at) 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
