I am including, to provide context, part of my previous message (that for
some reason was excluded in your reply),
Dan tried to remind you what the specifications were,
> I wrote:
>
>> - It is tacit
but apparently you were in another state of mind (see,
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015- December/043676.html),
Yeah... personally, I consider explicit code to be a subset of tacit
code.
As you said earlier in this thread "But of course, if you mean tacit in
some different sense, the rules change."
You wrote in your reply "Yes, and perhaps I should be more explicit about
what I'm trying to say there." and then you proceeded to discuss again, for
some reason, about the tacitness of the adverb (represented by) 1 : '+/ %
#' which was not originally "there." At any rate, regarding tacitness, you
do not seem to distinguish, as I do, between the producing sentence and its
product: "The expression 1 :'+/ % #' is tacit in two senses." This concept
of tacitness in two different senses is news to me and somewhat confuses me
because in the puzzling assertion "I consider explicit code to be a subset
of tacit code." you seem to be using one sense in one part and another
sense in another part of that sentence. In other words, in the original
context,
Am=:1 :0
u cam
)
you seem to be asserting that the sentence
1 :0
u cam
)
is tacit. Yet, its product (Am), that was the one required to be
tacit, is not. Whew! Did I get that riddle right (at least for the
most part)?
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As you said earlier in this thread "But of course, if you mean tacit in
> > some different sense, the rules change."
>
> Yes, and perhaps I should be more explicit about what I'm trying to say
> there.
>
> The expression 1 :'+/ % #' is tacit in two senses:
>
> (a) the : expression takes a constant argument rather than a named
> argument.
>
> (b) The result of the : expression does not contain any named arguments.
>
> In contrast,
> A=: '+/ % #'
> 1 : A
>
> only satisfies definition (b).
>
> Meanwhile, the definition 1 :'(+/ % #)y' only satisfies definition (a).
>
> And, of course:
> B=: '(+/ % #)y'
> 1 : B
>
> satisfies neither definition.
>
> > "Do you have an example where adverbial (or conjunctional) performance
> > might be critical?"
>
> If you put adverb definition inside a verb and then use that verb with
> high low rank on a large array, the adverb performance might become
> significant.
>
> But I imagine you would need a somewhat complicated scenario before
> anything like this could arise.
>
> --
> Raul
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
