I didn't mean THAT J7.01, I meant 1990's J7. The 'support' in J6 was
unintentional.
The documentation of x (A0 A1) <-> (x A1) A2 was removed
from the Dictionary when all the other trains were; it was replaced by
wording that says (A0 A1) is an adverb. What else should it mean but that
(x A0) is passed in to A1?
My suggestion is that if
N0 A1 A2
has a meaning, namely (N0 A1) A2,
N0 (A1 A2)
should have the same meaning. Wasn't that the original definition, back
when we had all the trains defined?
Henry Rich
On 3/15/2016 11:20 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
No, you would have to go way back; see,
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2008-February/009871.html
Incidentally, I do not think there is a bug in the current implementation
about
(x a1) a2 <-> x (a1 a2)
This equivalence was removed at some point from the Dictionary maybe
because it seems ambiguous: Does (x a1) a2 is meant literally as a train
or the product of (x a1) is passed as an argument to a2? The issue arises
when the product is an adverb and the latter interpretation was implemented
by mistake and was patched afterwards. Did Roger made two mistakes in a
row? It is possible but I find that hard to believe.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
? How far back do you have to go to find an old system that allows an
adverb as an operand to an adverb? J7 didn't allow it, did it?
Henry Rich
On 3/15/2016 7:03 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
What else would it do? The very old, and current Jx, behavior is to pass
(N0 A1) as an argument to A2 but that is blasphemy :)
(With conjunction giving an error) The current official J does no support
the Golden Age interpretation of C A but Jx does; so, it Jx would keep
going.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the motivation is that N0 (A1 A2) just oughta behave like ((N0 A1)
A2) because, well, what else would it do? It does behave that way when
the
result R3 is noun/verb/conjunction (with conjunction giving an error);
why
not adverb? Methinks the current behavior is simply a bug.
If it turned out to be difficult - if creating the composite (R3 A2)
posed
problems - I would rethink.
Henry Rich
On 3/15/2016 6:12 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
So, ok...
Adverb *trains* get created by "6 Bident".
Adverb *application* gets handled by "3 Adverb".
And, yes, this includes the application of adverb trains.
And, yes, the dictionary's coverage of the behavior adverb trains is
pretty much just a few examples.
And, more generally, error cases can be reimplemented to do something
other than produce an error. There's some room for small bits of
linguistic drift.
That said, there's the question of usefulness. If you defined adverb
train behavior such that v (A1 A2) where v A1 produces an adverb to be
an adverb result of the form ((v A1) A2), we could do that, and that
would prevent the error from being a syntax error. But that would also
mean that if someone accidentally wrote (A1 A2) but meant to write
something else they would not get an error. But both of those seem to
be rather unlikely.
So, are there any motivating useful examples which would make this
particular change worth including in the official interpreter?
(And, yes, that is a really tough question. But I think it's a fair
question.)
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
