How about it=: '4 : 'x i. y' f. which is produced by f. not : ? Does that make it tacit? Does it have a private namespace?
On Sunday, January 22, 2017, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > enigma =: 4 : 'x i. y'"1 > > Does enigma have a private namespace? I say no. The unnamed derived verb > has a private namespace, but enigma itself does not, as would be elucidated > by a longer example that did an assignment outside the derived verb (using > ".). > > The only time this distinction has ever mattered to me was when looking at > debug stack frames. Explicit definitions can have stops engaged, etc. > enigma cannot. > > [During 8.04 I added to the debugger to make it look like you can put > stops into enigma, but you are actually working on the derived verb, which > is given a system-generated name.] > > Henry Rich > > On 1/22/2017 8:46 PM, Jose Mario Quintana 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/forum >>>>>>> s.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> ---------- >>>>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forum >>>>>> s.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
