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
