Right, also ((<<(,'0');4),(<,':'),<<<;._1 '|0|x i. y')`:6 4 : 'x i. y'
This is reassuring because I think of taciness as a property of the verb regardless of how is written (akin of saying that 5 is a prime regardless if is written as 5, or 2 + 3 , or 1 + 2 * 2, etc.). You also had a point asserting the tacitness of 4 : 'x + y' " 0; my main objection, somewhat reflected in my posts, was not so much about the aseertion that 4 : 'x + y' " 0 is tacit but about the reason given and its implications. One could use any proper representation of an entity (word) to test if is tacit or not and Louis' verb for testing if a named word is explicit or tacit seems to do the job (practically speaking). On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > You have a point. Likewise, > > ident =: 1 : 'u' > > enigma ident > > would clearly be explicit, since it is the same as enigma itself. > > So I say that a value is explicit if its linear representation indicates > an entity produced by (noun : y). > > Henry Rich > > > On 1/22/2017 10:12 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > >> 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/forum >>>>>>> s.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> ---------- >>>>>>> >>>>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forum >>>>>> s.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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
