> On Apr 4, 2017, at 7:11 PM, Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have been thinking about this & I don't see a better solution than Raul's. > @Raul: think about putting something in NuVoc explaining this. > > I thought at first: should the anonymous verb created by > > verb adv_locale_ > > automatically be executed in (locale)? That would solve the immediate > problem. > > But it leaves us with the responsibility of defining a locale for every > anonymous verb. What locale should we assign to: > > (V0 V1_locale_ V2) > > (V0_locale0_ V1_locale1_ V2_locale2_) > > (V0_locale0_ V1) > > ?
I failed to see what is the problem here with giving a locale for every anonymous verb. What about this rule? 0. Any anonymous verb directly created by adverb will have the locale the same as the adverb. 1. Ditto for conjunction. 2. Any train of verbs will have the implied locale where they are created. So, given cocurrent'l0' The anonymous verb, (v0 v1_l1_) adv_la_ conj_lc_ (v2_l2_ v3_l3_) as a whole will have a locale lc, while the part '(v0 v1_l1_) adv_la_' have the locale la, the part 'v0 v1_l1_' have the locale l0, and the part 'v2_l2_ v3_l3_' have the locale l0 (though it does nothing since v2 and v3 have their locale set). At least this was what I thought before discovering that adverb and conjunction do different things in the current implementation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
