Explicit code can always be expressed as an expression using ( : ) -- Raul
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
