The entire verb is tacit, but it contains an explicit verb. 3 : 'x + y' " 0 +-----------+-+-+ |+-+-+-----+|"|0| ||3|:|x + y|| | | |+-+-+-----+| | | +-----------+-+-+
It is not unusual that explicit definitions contain tacit expressions and tacit definitions contain explicit definitions. When the "0 is applied it does not modify the explicit verb. It creates a new verb and it is tacit. But the definition really doesn't make much sense as the explicit verb is defined as monadic but contains both x and y, which should be dyadic. Of course it will run monadically if you define x as a global. f=:3 : 'x + y' " 0 x=:3 f 4 7 On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Jose Mario Quintana < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
