I cannot see how that "statement" could imply that I am insisting on anything. Be that as it may, I made that comment because the phrase "I consider explicit code to be a subset of tacit code." looked, and still looks, ambiguous (to me). Can you, or anyone else (if any), clarify the meaning of that phrase (in original the context) for me?
Likewise, your last question looks ambiguous to me. I would suggest to you to make it concrete by providing an example with alternative specific coding "mechanisms" with and without "explicit sentences," after all, this is (or should be) the Programming Forum; otherwise, you could continue this discussion offline or move it to the Chat Forum (I do not subscribe to the Chat Forum though). Either way would be fine with me :) On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > To answer your first question, your statement "you seem to be using > one sense in one part and another sense in another part of that > sentence" makes me think that. > > That said, if your claim in your final paragraph is correct - that you > only care about the results and not the mechanisms, then it seems to > me that the use of explicit sentences in their construction should not > be a problem for you. Is that what you really meant to say? > > -- > Raul > > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
