What makes you think that I might "want to insist that there's only one
relevant definition."? (The last role I want to play is the one of thought
enforcer.) If "multiple relevant meanings" of the word tacit works for you
(and presumably others), by all means, keep using them. However, you might
consider to specify which one of those "multiple relevant meanings" you
happen to have in mind when you are sharing your views, such as,
"I consider explicit code to be a subset of tacit code."
(Unless, of course, you prefer to keep them ambiguous and enigmatic.)
Forgive me but from my perspective, if one's goal is to produce tacit verbs
adverbs and conjunctions then focusing only on the tacitness of the
products allows one (I for one, at least) to ("Surprise! Surprise!")
produce tacit verbs, adverbs and conjunctions. In other words, as far as I
know, all the other "multiple relevant meanings" are irrelevant (to me)
when I want to produce (arbitrary) tacit verbs, adverbs and conjunctions.
It works for me (so far).
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
