I’d guess is that by “unstable” he meant “currently being modified". In any case, thanks for the link Jose (what should I call you? Pepe?). If there was one thing I could add to J it would be better support for first-class verbs (arrays of verbs, passing verbs as arguments), if only for the beauty of it, but I know this is neither easy nor practical in reality. However trying out your new version of Jx is; I’ll take a look at it if you release it. In the meantime I’ll look into your J701 version when I have the time!
Louis > On 17 Jul 2017, at 20:21, HenryRich <[email protected]> wrote: > > Unstable? If you have a bug in J8.06, please post it at > > http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/System/Interpreter/Bugs > > I don't see any bugs that are new in 8.06, and plenty that are fixed from > previous versions. > > Henry Rich > > On 7/17/2017 7:06 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: >> Louis, a Jx interpreter implements extensions to the language. It supports >> tacit programming full-heartedly and embraces first-class verbs. There are >> publicly available patches for Jx extensions, as well as, a pre-built 32 >> bit Windows dll and Pre-built 32 and 64 bit Linux libs at >> >> http://www.2bestsystems.com/foundation/j/jx0/index.html >> >> but it is an early version of Jx based on the J701 source. Jx has evolved >> (e.g., the primitives =.. and =:: were added afterwards) and J's core >> engine has evolved rapidly as well; it has been very difficult to catch up. >> ("Be careful what you wish for.") :) >> >> The current unreleased version of Jx is based on the unstable official J806 >> beta source and there are some relatively minor Jx glitches. We were >> planning to wait for the official J806 to become stable and resolve the Jx >> glitches but I might decide instead to release a current version, as is, >> soon. >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:40 AM, Louis de Forcrand <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> A lot has been said on these forums about Jx and Unbox. >>> They are unofficial J interpreters (with extensions to the language), are >>> they not? >>> Are they publicly available? I couldn't find anything about them on Google >>> except older messages in the forum archives, but then again unfortunately >>> this language's name makes it sometimes hard to look up on the web. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Louis >>> >>>> On 16 Jul 2017, at 15:37, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Sure, and the biggest problem here is the use of globals for arguments. >>>> >>>> The verbs themselves can be pure, but all we're really doing is >>>> rearranging the deck chairs. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Raul >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Jose Mario Quintana >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> At least we agree, I think, on one thing " in explicit programming >>>>> [typically] names refer to arguments while in tacit programming they do >>>>> not." Thus, is not just a matter of tacit aesthetics, there are some >>>>> consequences which might be difficult to evade: >>>>> >>>>> ('`u v') =: +/`*: >>>>> u@:v f. >>>>> +/@:*: >>>>> >>>>> ('`u v') =:: +/`*: NB. Jx >>>>> ┌───────┬──┐ >>>>> │┌─┬───┐│*:│ >>>>> ││/│┌─┐││ │ >>>>> ││ ││+│││ │ >>>>> ││ │└─┘││ │ >>>>> │└─┴───┘│ │ >>>>> └───────┴──┘ >>>>> u@:v f. >>>>> +/@:*: >>>>> >>>>> ('`u v') is +/`*: NB. >>>>> |domain error >>>>> | (m) =:y >>>>> is >>>>> 1 : '(m)=:y' >>>>> >>>>> So, assuming I understood the intended use of your adverb is, I am >>> afraid >>>>> your adverb cannot be used without typical limitations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
