From my understanding, the reference shows the atomic representation of gerund. It does not advocate this a way to construct a gerund. moreover it is "foreign" conjunction.
numbers can be converted from strings using foreign conjunction but it doesn't mean J encourages writing numbers using this method. IMO foreign conjunction is not a part of J core. Sent from my iPhone On 4 Aug, 2017, at 5:33 AM, Jose Mario Quintana <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote: > " > In J dictionary, only tie conjunction > on verbs was mentioned to produce a gerund. > " > > I am afraid you might not be the only one who has reached such conclusion. > Nevertheless, in my opinion, it is a misconception that a gerund can only > be a list (of atomic representations) of verbs. Why? See [0] in the > context of [1]. > > [0] Atomic > http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dx005.htm#1 > > [1] [Jprogramming] how to test for a gerund Roger Hui > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2010-April/019178.html > > Mind you gerundYN is not bulletproof. > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 5:46 AM, bill lam <bbill....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
