I guess somehow we both miss this:

System/ReleaseNotes/J806

New features:
u@n (where n is a noun) is now allowed, and executes u on the value of n,
ignoring any arguments (equivalent to u@(n"_))
u :: n (where n is a noun) is now allowed, and gives the result n if u
fails (equivalent to u :: (n"_))

http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/System/ReleaseNotes/J806#New_features:









On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:46 AM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <
programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:

> :: noun
> is equivalent to :: (noun"_)?
>
>       From: Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com>
>  To: Programming forum <programm...@jsoftware.com>
>  Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 5:25 AM
>  Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Boxed verbs as alternate gerunds
>
> :: 0
>
> Is a j8.06 feature.
>
> Henry Rich
>
> On Aug 8, 2017 23:42, "Jose Mario Quintana" <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > "I still like the @.] test."
> >
> > What am I doing wrong?  I have tried several times and I keep getting,
> >
> >    JVERSION
> > Engine: j805/j64/windows
> > Release: commercial/2016-12-11T08:02:16
> > Library: 8.05.11
> > Qt IDE: 1.5.3/5.7.0
> > Platform: Win 64
> > Installer: J805 install
> > InstallPath: c:/program files/j
> > Contact: www.jsoftware.com
> >
> >
> >    IsGerund=: 3 : 0 :: 0
> >  y@.]
> >  1
> > )
> > |domain error
> > |  IsGerund=:3 :0    ::0
> > |[-4]
> >
> >
> > Anyway, I was able to write it in Win Jx and it should not make any
> > difference,
> >
> > IsGerund=: 3 : 0 :: 0
> >  y@.]
> >  1
> > )
> >
> > Assuming I got it right, this how does your test compare to Roger's and
> > Pascal's for testing  ;:'+/' ,
> >
> >    test=. gerundYN ; isgerund ; IsGerund
> >
> >    test ;:'+/'
> > ┌─┬─┬─┐
> > │1│1│0│
> > └─┴─┴─┘
> >
> > In my mind,  ;:'+/'  is both, a gerund and a valid train,
> >
> >    (;:'+/')`:6
> > +/
> >    (;:'+/')@.0 1
> > +/
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Louis de Forcrand <ol...@bluewin.ch>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > @.] should be used, not @.0 :
> > >
> > >    v
> > > |value error: v
> > >    v123
> > > |value error: v123
> > >    v`''@.]
> > > v@.]
> > >    v123`''@.]
> > > v123@.]
> > >
> > > I still like the @.] test.
> > >
> > > Louis
> > >
> > > > On 07 Aug 2017, at 19:26, Jose Mario Quintana <
> > > jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No joke was intended, undefined names are regarded as verbs in the
> > > context
> > > > of adverbs and conjunctions.  Why? Because it allows for writing
> verbs
> > > in a
> > > > top-down fashion if one so desires.  (Bill, I know you know most of
> > this,
> > > > if not all; but I am putting some context for the potential benefit
> > > members
> > > > of the forum who might not.)
> > > >
> > > > An error thrown by  @.0  does not necessarily mean that the argument
> is
> > > not
> > > > a gerund or that it is a nonsensical gerund; I would assume we both
> > agree
> > > > that even if  v  is undefined  v`''  is still a gerund.  Either way,
> > both
> > > > Roger's and Pascal's tests agree on this,
> > > >
> > > >  v
> > > > |value error: v
> > > >
> > > >  gerundYN=: 0 -. @ e. 3 : ('y (5!:0)';'1')"0 :: 0:
> > > >  isgerund =: 0:`(0 -. @ e. 3 : ('y (5!:0)';'1')"0)@.(0 < L.) :: 0:
> > > >
> > > >  gerundYN v`''
> > > > 1
> > > >  isgerund v`''
> > > > 1
> > > >
> > > > Yet,
> > > >
> > > >  v`'' @.0
> > > > |value error: v
> > > >
> > > > However,
> > > >
> > > >  v`'' @.0 /
> > > > v/
> > > >
> > > > So, is the literal noun  'v'  a gerund or not?  A hint follows after
> > > > several blank lines,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  v
> > > > |value error: v
> > > >
> > > >  v123
> > > > |value error: v123
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  gerundYN 'v'
> > > > 1
> > > >  gerundYN 'v123'
> > > > 0
> > > >
> > > >  isgerund 'v'
> > > > 0
> > > >  isgerund 'v123'
> > > > 0
> > > >
> > > > What is happening?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Bill <bbill....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I am not sure if I understand your question. If you asked something
> > > >> undefined is a gerund or not. I checked by executing v@.0 '' and
> the
> > J
> > > >> interpreter said value error. Sounds like an empty array joke to me.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sent from my iPhone
> > > >>
> > > >> On 7 Aug, 2017, at 5:23 AM, Jose Mario Quintana <
> > > >> jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I am not hoping to change people's minds; nevertheless, I would
> like
> > to
> > > >>> explain, to some degree, my rationale regarding my current notion
> of
> > > >> what a
> > > >>> gerund is.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The Dictionary is famous (or infamous according to some?) for its
> > > >>> terseness.  It is not really surprising to me that different people
> > > have
> > > >>> different understandings even regarding the very important concept
> of
> > > >>> gerund.  Personally, I use Dictionary as the primary source but
> > > >>> complemented by other official documents, forum information
> > > (particularly
> > > >>> opinions and statements from certain people), third party sources,
> > and
> > > >>> first and foremost the "real thing", the interpreter(s) which it
> is,
> > > >> after
> > > >>> all, where programs and utilities for writing programs, some of
> which
> > > are
> > > >>> very important to me, run.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Let me start with the (current version of the) Dictionary, this is
> > how
> > > I
> > > >>> perceive it, given its terseness, the statement  "Verbs act upon
> > nouns
> > > to
> > > >>> produce noun results..." is generally interpreted as "Verbs act
> upon
> > > >> nouns
> > > >>> [and only nouns] to produce noun [and only noun] results..." and
> > other
> > > >>> supporting evidence clearly confirm that is the intention.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Therefore, assuming that the Dictionary is consistent, then the
> > > statement
> > > >>> related to the to the entry Tie (Gerund),
> > > >>> "
> > > >>> More generally, tie produces gerunds as follows: u`v is au,av ,
> where
> > > au
> > > >>> and av are the (boxed noun) atomic representations (5!:1) of u and
> v
> > .
> > > >>> Moreover, m`n is m,n and m`v is m,av and u`n is au,n . See Bernecky
> > and
> > > >> Hui
> > > >>> [12]. Gerunds may also be produced directly by boxing.
> > > >>> "
> > > >>> could be intrepreted as "... tie produces gerunds [and only
> > > gerunds]..."
> > > >>> (I know that, actually , tie can produce also nouns which are not
> > > >> gerunds;
> > > >>> just as a verbs can produce words which are not a nouns.)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Incidentally, I do not regard foreings as part of the core language
> > > >> either
> > > >>> but they are in the Dictionary, and they are used to illustrate
> > points,
> > > >>> even when discussing a primitive (see (5!:1) above).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Furthermore, "Moreover, m`n is m,n and m`v is m,av and u`n is au,n"
> > > >>> suggests that both, the left and right arguments do not have to be
> > > verbs.
> > > >>> Indeed, the gerund (produced by)  +`-`* is equivalent to (+`-)`*
> and
> > > >> (+`-)
> > > >>> is not a verb it is a gerund (i.e, a noun).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The last sentence "Gerunds may also be produced directly by boxing"
> > is
> > > >>> quite important in the context of last part of that page,
> > > >>> "
> > > >>> The atomic representation of a noun (used so as to distinguish a
> noun
> > > >> such
> > > >>> as '+' from the verb +) is given by the following function:
> > > >>>  (ar=: [: < (,'0')"_ ; ]) '+'
> > > >>> +-----+
> > > >>> |+-+-+|
> > > >>> ||0|+||
> > > >>> |+-+-+|
> > > >>> +-----+
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  *`(ar '+')
> > > >>> +-+-----+
> > > >>> |*|+-+-+|
> > > >>> | ||0|+||
> > > >>> | |+-+-+|
> > > >>> +-+-----+
> > > >>> "
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There, clearly, the right argument (ar '+') of  `  is the atomic
> > > >>> representation of a noun ('+') not a verb.  That is, *`(ar '+') is
> a
> > > >> gerund
> > > >>> and, for example, G=. (*:`ar 0 1 2) is a gerund well.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Let me jump to the Dictionary's entry for Evoke Gerund (`:),
> > > >>> "
> > > >>> m `: 6 Train Result is the train of individual verbs.
> > > >>> "
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Right, it is referring to a train of verbs but the entry is Evoke
> > > Gerund
> > > >>> and G (defined above) is a gerund which makes sense (to me) as a
> > train;
> > > >> so
> > > >>> I expect G`:6 to work, and it does,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  G`:6
> > > >>> 0 1 4
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Let me jump to the Dictionary's entry for Agenda (@.),
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "
> > > >>> m@.n is a verb defined by the gerund m with an agenda specified by
> > n ;
> > > >> that
> > > >>> is, the verb represented by the train selected from m by the
> indices
> > n
> > > .
> > > >> If
> > > >>> n is boxed, the train is parenthesized accordingly. The case m@.v
> > uses
> > > >> the
> > > >>> result of the verb v to perform the selection.
> > > >>> "
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Again, verbs are mentioned; yet again, I expect G@.0 1 to work,
> and
> > it
> > > >> does,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  G@.0 1
> > > >>> 0 1 4
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Incidentally, if is not for producing code (and executing code),
> what
> > > is
> > > >>> the purpose of "If n is boxed, the train is parenthesized
> > accordingly.
> > > >> The
> > > >>> case m@.v uses the result of the verb v to perform the selection"
> > (see
> > > >>> above)?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What did the original co-designer and implementor of the language
> > > write,
> > > >> in
> > > >>> the post I mentioned before, responding to the question, how to
> test
> > > for
> > > >> a
> > > >>> gerund?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Here it is,
> > > >>> "
> > > >>> [Jprogramming] how to test for a gerund  Roger Hui
> > > >>>  gerundYN=: 0 -. at e. 3 : ('y (5!:0)';'1')"0 :: 0:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  gerundYN +`*
> > > >>> 1
> > > >>>  gerundYN <'0';i.5
> > > >>> 1
> > > >>>  gerundYN <i.5
> > > >>> 0
> > > >>>  gerundYN 5!:1 <'gerundYN'
> > > >>> 1
> > > >>>
> > > >>> See also http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dx005.htm#1
> > > >>> "
> > > >>>
> > > >>> He used a foreign (5!:0) to write his testing verb, he "produced
> > > directly
> > > >>> by boxing" a gerund and tested it ( gerundYN <'0';i.5 ), and he
> used
> > a
> > > >>> foreign to produce a gerund and tested it ( gerundYN 5!:1
> <'gerundYN'
> > > ).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I could keep going but all the above is enough for me to justify my
> > > >> opinion
> > > >>> that a gerund is not merely a list of atomic representations of
> > verbs.
> > > >>> Ultimately, it does not matter what name (gerund, gerundive, etc.),
> > if
> > > >> any,
> > > >>> is given to these entities; different people at different times
> have
> > > >> used these
> > > >>> AND related entities in the context of `:6 , and  @. .  I, for one,
> > > would
> > > >>> not be a happy camper if the official interpreter is changed in
> such
> > a
> > > >> way
> > > >>> that my programs and utilities for writing programs break down,
> even
> > > if I
> > > >>> have an alternative.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Finally, I would like to pose a simple yet subtle question to those
> > who
> > > >> do
> > > >>> not regard a gerund as merely a list of of atomic representations
> of
> > > >> verbs,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  erase'v'
> > > >>> 1
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  gerundYN 'v'  NB. Roger's test...
> > > >>> 1
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  isgerund =: 0:`(0 -. @ e. 3 : ('y (5!:0)';'1')"0)@.(0 < L.) :: 0:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  isgerund 'v'  NB. Pascal's test
> > > >>> 0
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Is 'v' a gerund or not?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Bill <bbill....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> 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/0
> > > >> 19178.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.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > > > 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

Reply via email to