The word "tacit" has multiple relevant meanings in the context of J programming.
You seem to want to insist that there's only one relevant definition. But that's not how definitions work. -- Raul On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
