That's tacit enough for me. Anyway, thanks for both definitions. It's satisfying to know this is possible. On 13 Feb 2016 10:47 am, "Raul Miller" <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's simpler than what I was thinking of. > > And that does satisfy my concept of tacit programming, though I think > I remember hearing rumblings from other people that this kind of thing > is not tacit. (Actually, if tacit means "no use of names" then the 3 > :'0 :0' definition would also be tacit.) > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > <[email protected]> wrote: > > getnoun=. ".@:('0 : 0'"_) > > > > $getnoun'' > > 1 2 3 > > 4 5 6 > > ) > > 12 > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Wrapping 0 :0 in an explicit verb should be possible: > >> > >> getnoun=:3 :'0 :0' > >> $getnoun'' > >> 1 2 3 > >> 4 5 6 > >> ) > >> 12 > >> > >> It's also possible to do this tacitly, but yeah, doing it tacitly such > >> that it triggers when a verb is executed would be tricky (possible, > >> but overly verbose to accomplish). Also, not sure if that would have > >> any uses... > >> > >> Personally, I rarely even bother using the predefined (noun define) > >> cover for this. The raw 0 :0 form is actually rather convenient. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -- > >> Raul > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Matthew Baulch <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > Ok. That explains things well. So the the line(s) containing : behave > >> just > >> > as if : is an everyday conjunction. It's the lines AFTER : that are > >> treated > >> > specially. > >> > > >> > I suppose that's quite a clear design. I'll re-read the documentation. > >> Like > >> > you say, once I know what's going on, these subtle points are more > likely > >> > to stand out. > >> > > >> > ". does indeed have unlimited potential—over the domain of character > >> arrays > >> > anyway. I'm trying to wrap this construction in a verb so I can obtain > >> > these multi-line definitions without explicitly calling ". . Just for > >> > feelings of purity. It doesn't seem like this can be accomplished > >> tacitly. > >> > I'm starting to think that 0:0 has to appear in each definition, and > so > >> > defining such a verb may not be possible. Oh well. > >> > > >> > Thanks. : makes sense now. > >> > On 12 Feb 2016 2:11 pm, "Henry Rich" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a discussion of > 'expressions > >> to > >> >> the > >> >> > right of zero' (such as '-.LF' in '0 : 0 -. LF') > >> >> > in either of your links. > >> >> > >> >> No. But that isn't surprising when you understand what's going on. > >> >> > >> >> 0 : 0 creates a noun. > >> >> > >> >> Because conjunctions are executed before verbs, > >> >> > >> >> 0 : 0 -. LF > >> >> > >> >> is the same as > >> >> > >> >> (0 : 0) -. LF > >> >> > >> >> (0 : 0) creates a noun that can be used just as any other noun is > used. > >> >> You can add to it, subtract from it, execute it... The (-. LF) has > >> nothing > >> >> to do with the execution of (:). What I'm saying is, if you are OK > with > >> >> something like > >> >> > >> >> ".;._2 (0 : 0) > >> >> > >> >> [which feeds the result of (0 : 0) into a verb], you should ipso > facto > >> be > >> >> OK with > >> >> > >> >> (0 : 0) -. LF > >> >> > >> >> which also feeds that result into a verb, just from the left this > time. > >> >> > >> >> The (:) in (0 : 0) is executed WHEN (:) IS EXECUTED, i. e. at the > >> >> appropriate time during the parse [see NuVoc for explanations]. After > >> (:) > >> >> has read its fill, execution of the sentence continues. So, you can > have > >> >> > >> >> (0 : 0) ,&(".;._2) (0 : 0) > >> >> > >> >> 1 2 3 > >> >> > >> >> ) > >> >> > >> >> 10 20 30 > >> >> > >> >> 40 50 60 > >> >> > >> >> 70 80 90 > >> >> > >> >> ) > >> >> > >> >> 10 20 30 > >> >> > >> >> 40 50 60 > >> >> > >> >> 70 80 90 > >> >> > >> >> 1 2 3 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Two (0 : 0) in one sentence [the parentheses are not required]! and > >> >> executed right-to-left. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> (".) has unlimited potential, but often is put to mundane use. When I > >> was > >> >> starting with J I felt a frisson of daring when I used it, but now > it's > >> >> just another verb to me. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Henry Rich > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> I'd welcome any correction. > >> >>> > >> >>> Cheers. > >> >>> It's pretty well explained at > >> >>> > >> >>> http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/NounExplicitDefinition > >> >>> > >> >>> The question is, How would you know to read that? Suggestions > >> welcomed. > >> >>> > >> >>> When you say "expression following the 0", I'm not sure which 0 you > >> mean. > >> >>> > >> >>> : is the all-purpose entity creator; the left 0 says 'create a > noun', > >> and > >> >>> the right > >> >>> 0 says 'make that noun from the upcoming lines of input'. > >> >>> > >> >>> Full details are spelled out in several pages starting at > >> >>> http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/cor > >> >>> > >> >>> Henry Rich > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On 2/11/2016 12:55 AM, Matthew Baulch wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks everyone. This (let's say) creative use of 0 : 0 makes sense > to > >> me > >> >>>> now. I wonder if it's an accidental consequence of the > implementation > >> >>>> that > >> >>>> allows an expression following the 0, or whether it's a deliberate > >> design > >> >>>> decision. Either way, it makes sense to have it documented. Can't > see > >> it > >> >>>> in > >> >>>> NuVoc or the Dictionary. Of course, I may have overlooked it. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Honestly, to obtain something simple like multi-line noun > >> definitions, ". > >> >>>> does seem like quite a heavy-handed tool. It does work however, so > I > >> >>>> probably shouldn't grumble. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Cheers. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Matthew Baulch < > >> [email protected]> > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> 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 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>> 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 > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
