Specifically, what you call "first class verbs" are, according to the dictionary, supposed to be trains.
That this glitch seems useful says something, I think, about the value of inconsistency. Thanks, -- Raul On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > Louis, call me Pepe (which is the nickname for Jose); that is how friends > call me. > > Even if first-class verbs are not in compliance with the J Dictionary, > official interpreters allow them but one has to wrestle with the > interpreters. Using first-class verbs, one can operate on verbs [0] in a > similar way one can operate on nouns [1]. Jx extensions make their use > more pleasant and goes beyond first-class verbs; Jx also facilitates to > pass verbs, adverbs and conjunctions to verbs, adverbs and conjunctions to > produce verbs, adverbs and conjunctions. > > [0] Tacit (unorthodox) version > https://rosettacode.org/wiki/First-class_functions#Tacit_. > 28unorthodox.29_version > [1] Tacit (unorthodox) version > https://rosettacode.org/wiki/First-class_functions/Use_ > numbers_analogously#Tacit_.28unorthodox.29_version > > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Louis de Forcrand <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
