It is interesting that running the "load" verb that it provides a private namespace allowing a script to create local names to work with knowing that the names disappear when the "load" ends. But "load" blocks access to the local names of the caller. Where (0 : n) does not create a private namespace allowing the script to see and create local names for the caller.
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > No, of course I meant 1 : y etc. > > The main difference between explicit and tacit entities is that explicit > entities have a private namespace. > > Henry Rich > > > On 1/21/2017 6:16 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > >> However, if the tacitness of a verb would really depend on the process by >> which it is produced (the notion that was being entertained), as oppossed >> to an intrinsic property of the verb, then there would be no much point in >> talking about a difference in performance (tacit vs explicit) because, if >> I >> am not mistaken, for every explicit verb there woul be a tacit verb with >> identical performance and viceversa. >> >> By the way, according to that notion, the verb - : + would be >> explicit... Really? >> >> >> On Saturday, January 21, 2017, Devon McCormick <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I agree with Don's assertion "...the difference in performance is not that >>> large compared to other considerations >>> ." >>> Personally, I find tacit more difficult to read than explicit, not the >>> least because the names I choose for temporary variables in explicit code >>> provide some documentation about my intent. >>> >>> I'll use tacit for short, simple phrases, like >>> >>> (]}.~[:>:]i:[)"(0 1) NB. Everything in y after last x >>> NB.EG 'someFile.htm' -: '/' (]}.~[:>:]i:[) ' >>> https://some.site.domain/Folder/someFile.htm' >>> >>> because I can figure them out easily but anything much longer than this >>> becomes an impediment to reading, in my experience. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Louis de Forcrand <[email protected] >>> <javascript:;>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On the topic of f., one must be careful when using f. on a recursive verb >>>> (or one that uses another recursive verb). >>>> >>>> Louis >>>> >>>> On 21 Jan 2017, at 16:22, Don Guinn <[email protected] <javascript:;>> >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> When does it matter whether a statement is tacit or explicit or a >>>>> >>>> mixture >>> >>>> of both? Not normally as the difference in performance is not that >>>>> >>>> large >>> >>>> compared to other considerations. What does matter is when an >>>>> >>>> expression >>> >>>> is >>>> >>>>> executed. If all the tokens in an expression are known it runs. That is >>>>> true for both tacit and explicit expressions. So often tacit >>>>> >>>> expressions >>> >>>> are executed when encountered in a script, much like like preprocessing >>>>> >>>> in >>>> >>>>> C. >>>>> When the results of a tacit expression are assigned to a name it has >>>>> executed. The results of the execution is defining a name. >>>>> >>>>> One interesting aspect of this is that interrupt handlers are explicit >>>>> definitions so there is an unknown token - the argument y. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Jose Mario Quintana < >>>>> [email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Furthermore, if I show the verb, >>>>>> >>>>>> wiy >>>>>> 3 : '52+ +./"1 [ 4=weekday(1 1,:12 31),"0 1/~ y' >>>>>> >>>>>> there is no way to know if is tacit or not because I could have done, >>>>>> >>>>>> wiy=. 3 : '52+ +./"1 [ 4=weekday(1 1,:12 31),"0 1/~ y' >>>>>> >>>>>> or, >>>>>> >>>>>> wiy=. 'weeksinyear' f. >>>>>> >>>>>> Really? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Saturday, January 21, 2017, Raul Miller <[email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>> <javascript:;>> >>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Speaking of pedantic, (;:'weeksinyear')`:6 is presumably explicit... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Raul >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>> <javascript:;> >>> >>>> <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Explicit entities are created by the (:) conjunction. Anything else >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> is >>>> >>>>> tacit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The distinction is notional. We all have little bits of tacit code >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> in >>> >>>> our >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> J lines: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> maxindex =: (i. >./) array >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the (i. >./) is a tiny tacit verb. If you gave it a name it would >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> become >>>>>> >>>>>>> a named tacit verb. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sometimes the distinction seems pedantic: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> qverb =: 3 : 0"0 >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is qverb tacit or explicit? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Answer: tacit. It is not created by (:). It is created by ("). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry Rich >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/20/2017 9:39 PM, William Szuch wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Trying to understand when an explicit verb is used in a tacit >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> form. >>> >>>> For example if I define v1 which is in a tacit form - does not have >>>>>>>>> reference to arguments but contains the explicit verb rplc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> v1 =: [: ". rplc&(LF;' ') >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In this case what should v1 be called - an explicit of tacit ?. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> v2 =: v1 f. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If I now use f. to replace rplc in v1 then v2 is an explicit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The advantage of using f. is that if rplc has no public names then >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> v2 >>> >>>> has >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>> public names. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This can be useful is removing public names in a verb. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any comments to help with my understanding of tacits. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bill Szuch >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------- >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Devon McCormick, CFA >>> >>> Quantitative Consultant >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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
