Right, fix (f.) is smart but not that smart; it cannot fix certain explicit
verbs (it cannot fix certain tacit verbs either). Some are easy to fix
manually,
square f.
*:
f=: 3 : '*: y'
Others, such as the one you mentioned earlier,
f=: 3 :'*&y qromb 0 1'
might not be easy to fix. Which brings me back to the question about
"locales with adverbs and conjunctions" vs locales with verbs. I know that
your stated goal is to use qromb as a normal adverb but, for the sake of
the argument, forget about that for the time being. Let us consider just
the verb qromb_nr_ (the verb wrapper for qromb_nr_ in the base locale
would be the verb, say, qromb=. qromb_nr_ , I think, but forget also about
that).
My question is, can you perform the double integration with the aid of
qromb_nr_ ? My naive attempt follows,
In terms of the verb qromb_nr_ the verb f=: 3 :'*&y qromb 0 1' can be
written as,
f1=. 3 : 0
u=. *&y
qromb_nr_ (u f.`'') ; 0 1
)
and the equivalent of f qromb 0 1 is, if I am not mistaken, qromb_nr_
(f1 f.`'') ; 0 1 . However,
qromb_nr_ (f1 f.`'') ; 0 1
|length error: qromb_nr_
| TrapzdNextS=:-:TrapzdNextS+ba*t%~+/ u({.y)+(0.5+i.t)*ba%t=.2^
TrapzdNextN-2
but qromb_nr_ is based on your qromb_nr code apart from the interface to
make it a verb. So, my question is, can you write a verb which performs
the double integration easily or the issue is really deeper than the
subject of this thread suggests (to me) and involves also locales with
verbs? (This is not a rhetorical question.)
I have an ulterior motive, despite my lack of expertise in explicit
programming and locales, for getting involved in this discussion. On the
one hand, any changes to the behavior of explicit verbs, adverbs and
conjunctions will not affect any present or future production code that
concerns me directly because it is all tacit and fixed. On the other hand,
as I mentioned before, calls to external (distributed) explicit verbs (and
maybe adverbs and conjunctions) are also performed by production systems.
Thus, I have more questions: Do the intended changes will also affect the
operation of explicit verbs in addition to adverbs and conjunctions? If
so, will the distributed utilities be affected (e.g., Standard Library and
addons in the Project Manager)? Will the extension(s) be, reasonably,
backward compatible?
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Xiao-Yong Jin <jinxiaoy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:54 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <
> jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So, that is what I was missing. It seems that one can literally fix the
>
> Cannot fix explicit definition with global names. Try
> f=:3 :'square y'
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
