Looking at this more closely now. I'm a bit puzzled about the use of -. here. Obviously this is used here in dyadic form. In x -. LF the LF characters are, of course, removed from x. What is the x here? I have seen that it works--not doubting that. Just trying to work out how. Sorry. There's probably something obvious I've missed.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > If you do not have good names for partial calculations, that might be > a sign that you need to think a bit more about the abstractions you > are using. It can be difficult for other people to read if you don't > make sufficient effort to label your abstractions. > > Also, I would note that your 'c0' is not a combinator, as you are not > using its dyadic definition. So you might want to use a different name > for that one. Perhaps: > > v0=:c0 > > That said, if you really want to execute really long lines, you can do > that using ". 0 :0-.LF and indented text. (You need the indentation > because line feeds will not separate words here.) > > For example: > > myStruct=: ". 0 :0-.LF > v0 p0 c1 p1 c2 p2 c3 p3 c4 p4 c5 p5 c6 p6 c7 p7 c8 p8 c9 p9 > c10 p10 c11 p11 c12 p12 c13 p13 c14 p14 c15 p15 c16 p16 c17 > p17 c18 p18 c19 p19 c20 p20 c21 p21 c22 p22 c23 p23 c24 p24 > c25 p25 c26 p26 c27 p27 c28 p28 c29 p29 c30 p30 > ) > > I hope this helps, > > -- > Raul > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Matthew Baulch <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Suppose I wish to construct a complex, non-regular deeply nested > structure: > > to model some inherently non-linear system. A natural approach (for me, > > anyhow) is to construct a library of combinators, or a domain specific > > language, with which to specify the (boxed) structure. > > > > J rises easily to the task, and before long I'm looking at long function > > trains of the form > > > > myStruct =: c0 p0 c1 p1 c2 p2 ... cN pN > > > > where the ci are (combinator) verbs, and the pj are (parameter) nouns. > > Nice. Easy. > > > > Only trouble is, N may be large and J prefers such statements to sit on a > > single line. Correct? I can split my definition: > > > > msPartA =. ..... > > msPartB =. ..... > > ..... > > msPartX =. ..... > > myStruct =: msPartA msPartB .... msPartX > > > > though this feels awkward. The most obvious issue is that the PartA, ..., > > PartX are distracting; unless of course I can find a natural way of > > splitting and naming them. Ideally, the parts should be as close to a > > comfortable line width as possible. Again, awkward. If myStruct1 and > > myStruct2 have the same partitioning scheme but myStruct2 (for instance) > is > > much larger than myStruct1, there will be many sparsely, or many > > overpopulated lines. Awkward too. > > > > I love J. It handles complex regular data so elegantly. How can I bring > > similar elegance to irregular data? Can my combinators be rescued, or > > should I use another approach? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
