"
On my wish list would be something similar for the “each" adverb. While writing
tacit code I very often find myself  writing

        u@(0{::]) ; v@:(1{::]) etc.
"

Louis, I find the points you raised very interesting and they might
influence Jx v1.1.

Meanwhile, if you really very often would like to produce,

v0@(0{::]) ; v1@:(1{::]) ; v2@:(1{::]) ...

given v0, v1, v2, ...  You could write an (explicit?) adverb, Each for
instance, such that, for example,

   v0`v1`v2`v3 Edge
v0@:(0&({::)) ; v1@:(1&({::)) ; v2@:(2&({::)) ; v3@:(3&({::))

I prefer, of course,

   [: v0 v1 v2 v3 Each
v0@:(0&({::)) ; v1@:(1&({::)) ; v2@:(2&({::)) ; v3@:(3&({::))

It was very easy to write  Each  tacitly in Jx particularly because I had
seen similar patterns before.  If you need often the cyclical feature then
I would expect it to be a matter of adding a minor complication.

Do you really need the cyclical feature?

You might also like to read the oblique (/.) entry in the Dictionary and
other sources; it could help.


On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Louis de Forcrand <ol...@bluewin.ch> wrote:

> I quite like this idea. It’s unfortunate that m”n was previously defined
> differently,
> but as you say conflicts would probably be nonexistent, and I’ve often
> wanted
> to apply one verb to the first element of an array, another to the second,
> etc.
>
> On my wish list would be something similar for the “each" adverb. While
> writing tacit code I very often find myself writing
>
>         u@(0{::]) ; v@:(1{::]) etc.
>
> and the readability / terseness of
>
>         u`v&.>
>
> would be valuable IMO (albeit perhaps not easy to incorporate correctly
> into the language).
>
>
> I was just about to send this email, but then I thought of this:
>
> For adverbs / conjunctions like @, &, or &. which depend on the rank of
> their right argument (unlike @:, &:, &.:), a gerund left argument could be
> extended cyclically over each item of the right argument’s result. Not only
> would that check one item off my wish list, but if gerund m in m”n proves
> to
> be unacceptable, it could be replaced by
>
>         m@(]”n)
>
> This would create no incompatibilities apart from code relying on errors
> thrown by those operators.
>
> Louis
>
> > On 03 Aug 2017, at 01:51, Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The argument for gerund"n is this:
> >
> > All partitioning modifiers (/. / ;.n etc,) support cyclic gerunds.  The
> > anomalous case is " which is the most basic partitioning modifier of all.
> > It should have been defined to support cyclic gerunds.
> >
> > The proposal is to put it right without breaking any code.  m"n when m
> > resembles a gerund and n is not _ will be very rare, perhaps nonexistent,
> > in actual code.  For new code, m"_"n will work for any n.
> >
> > Henry Rich
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:07 AM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <
> > programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
> >
> >> the best solution I've seen,
> >>
> >>
> >> isgerund =: 0:`(0 -.@e. 3 : ('y (5!:0)';'1')"0)@.(0 < L.) :: 0:
> >>
> >>
> >> tests that each "box" can be passed to 5!:0 without error.
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Bill <bbill....@gmail.com>
> >> To: "programm...@jsoftware.com" <programm...@jsoftware.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 9:01 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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/forum
> s.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

Reply via email to