Alright, it seems you meant just the explicit definition form for adverb,
conjunction and verbs; that is, n : m at least for n = 1, 2, 3, and 4 (I
am not sure if you include n=13 or not).
Your comment about the main difference between explicit and tacit entities
leads me to believe that our views might not be too far apart, or at least
we have some common ground for discussion. Having a private namespace is
an intrinsic property of an entity and I (currently) make a distinction
between a production process and its product (e.g., the product of 13 : 'x
+ y' is, the explicitly defined, tacit verb + ).
What I find odd is your assertion that, say, 3 : 'x + y' " 0 is tacit.
Why? Because, for the same reason you stated, presumably the verb
(produced by),
3 : 'x + y' (" 0)
3 : 'x + y'"0
would also be tacit, as well as the verb,
3 : 'x + y' f.
3 : 'x + y'
However, this last verb certainly has its very own private namespace and it
looks quite explicit to me.
Where did I go wrong?
By the way, from my vantange point certain tacit verbs , for instance 3 :
'0' , can have their own private (albeit pretty useless) namespace.
On Saturday, January 21, 2017, 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
