I am thinking of the opposite. In J dictionary, only tie conjunction on verbs was mentioned to produce a gerund. Boxed verbs had not been mentioned. Atomic representation of boxed verbs looks like that of gerund and therefore can work as gerund. IMO this is a backdoor provided by J implementation.
Metadata could be attached to "real" gerunds that have ancestors which were results of verb`verb. All other nouns without this DNA would be regarded as non-gerund. Just my 2 cents. On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Marshall Lochbaum <mwlochb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Can I just point out that it's not too late to add some (documented) way > to box verbs/adverbs/conjunctions? These could be treated as gerunds by > everything that currently uses gerunds, and the interpreter can just > throw an error if anything attempts to actually unbox them. They are > much harder to confuse than the current gerunds, and will have far > better performance. > > This sounds like a radical divergence from the way J works now, but I > don't think it is in practice. Programmers would use some new > conjunction to replace (`), and provided they don't inspect the > structure of gerunds nothing else changes. I suppose there would need to > be a way to check what class of object a box contains, because unboxing > to check the type is not allowed. Gerunds would remain useful for > programmers who want to inspect functions or build them from scratch, > but would otherwise become obselete. > > Marshall > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 09:01:37AM +0800, Bill wrote: >> J interpreter must know when a noun is a gerund, so is it possible to add a >> new primitive to test for gerund? Or is there already J script to test for >> gerund? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 3 Aug, 2017, at 3:36 AM, Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I expect to make some more improvements to dyad u"n, and eventually to >> > rewrite the monad to match the dyad. My availability to work on this will >> > be intermittent for a while. The 8.06 code as is works, and fixes a >> > long-standing bug reported by Martin Neitzel. >> > >> > I have suggested using m"n, where n is not _, to implement a cyclic gerund >> > m. If m doesn't look like a gerund, it would be treated as a simple noun. >> > While this is not strictly compatible, I think it very unlikely that it >> > would break any existing code. I think m"n was wrongly defined and that >> > this is the correct definition. My opinion is not universally shared so I >> > haven't acted on it. >> > >> > Henry Rich >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Thomas Costigliola <fo...@iocane.net> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> You can try removing the conditional statement enclosing that line, but >> >> for now I would say the patch is broken under Clang. Since the rank code >> >> was completely rewritten in J805 and J806 and ":: is based on the J804 >> >> rank >> >> with some unfinished updates Henry was working on, the real solution is to >> >> rewrite ":: based on the new rank code. But that should wait until the >> >> code >> >> is stable. Does anyone anticipate more changes? >> >> >> >> On a more philosophical note, ":: implements gerund left arguments that >> >> apply to the items cyclically. The reason for adding a new primitive and >> >> not extending ": is because it breaks using ": to define constant >> >> functions. If someone has any ideas to make them play nicely together then >> >> they can be merged into a single primitive. The issue is that there is no >> >> distinction between a noun and gerund. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> -Thomas >> >> >> >> >> >> On 08/02/2017 11:52 AM, bill lam wrote: >> >> >> >>> Yes, I use Clang and have -Werror -Wextra in CFLAGS. >> >>> Sometimes vs2013 is much less tolerant. >> >>> >> >>> Ср, 02 авг 2017, Thomas Costigliola написал(а): >> >>> >> >>>> That looks like Henry's code taken from cr.c at some older version. It >> >>>> compiles fine for me in GCC and Visual Studio 2013. It is in the >> >>>> implementation of "::, which seems to be working in my tests, so that >> >>>> code >> >>>> never gets hit. Are you using Clang? It's much less tolerant of code >> >>>> like >> >>>> that. >> >>>> >> >>>> Regards, >> >>>> -Thomas >> >>>> >> >>>> On 08/02/2017 11:21 AM, bill lam wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> When I tried to compile, but this line in best.c failed. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> *((I*)0)=0; // scaf >> >>>>> >> >>>>> and I can not understand its intention, access to memory >> >>>>> address 0 should cause segfault. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Вт, 01 авг 2017, Jose Mario Quintana написал(а): >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> A brief description of the Jx v1.0 extensions, together with links to >> >>>>>> a >> >>>>>> Windows 64 bit dll, a Unix 64 bit so binaries and the patch >> >>>>>> corresponding >> >>>>>> to the J806 source can be found at, >> >>>>>> http://www.2bestsystems.com/foundation/j/jx1 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Summary >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> - Spelling >> >>>>>> - Names with unicode characters >> >>>>>> - Primitives >> >>>>>> Added =.. =:: $:: [. ]. ]: ".. ":: `. ?: i.. O. >> >>>>>> Extended ~ $. >> >>>>>> - Foreign >> >>>>>> Added 104!:5 Unnamed Execution >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> - Trains >> >>>>>> a v Added (different from Jx v0) >> >>>>>> a a Extended (different from Jx v0) >> >>>>>> c a Resurrected >> >>>>>> a c a Resurrected >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The Jx v0 page, >> >>>>>> http://www.2bestsystems.com/foundation/j/jx0 >> >>>>>> will be removed in the near future >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Time permitting, there will be soon a script with assertions for those >> >>>>>> who >> >>>>>> want to verify binaries targeted for other platforms and I will try to >> >>>>>> illustrate the facilities in action with some scripts. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Jose Mario Quintana < >> >>>>>> jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The patches, a Windows 32-bit DLL, a cheatsheet, 32 and 64 bit Unix >> >>>>>>> libraries are found at: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> http://www.2bestsystems.com/foundation/j/ >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> For more details and demonstration code, see the article in the >> >>>>>>> Journal of >> >>>>>>> J: http://journalofj.com/index.php/vol-2-no-2-october-2013 (only the >> >>>>>>> definition of the new conjunction knot (`.) has been slightly >> >>>>>>> modified for >> >>>>>>> the release). >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>>>>> ---------- >> >>>>>> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
