If you subscribe to the chat forum (perhaps after Jx v1.1 is
released), and remind me of the questions you raise here, I will be
happy to continue this discussion there.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Jose Mario Quintana
<jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Won't this destroy adverb trains?
>
> I do not think so. I am not aware of any J adverb train destroyed by a Jx
> v1.1 interpreter.
>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
>> <jose.mario.quintana at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Jx version 1.1, not yet released, allows adverbs and conjunctions to
> act on
>> > boxed verbs, adverbs and conjunctions (see [0] for the motivation),
>>
>> A train is a deferred action syntactic construct.
>
> Remember, arrays of boxed verbs, adverbs and conjunctions are nouns;
> furthermore, as far as a Jx v1.1 interpreter is concerned they are also
> gerunds.
>
> Incidentally, is
>
> (%:3) * ]
> 1.7320508075688772 * ]
>
> "a deferred action syntactic construct"?
>
> Also, is
>
> v"(<:1)
> v"0
>
> "a deferred action syntactic construct"?
>
>>
>> It seems to me that by preventing the deferral you prevent the train
>> from forming.
>>
>> (Put differently: since Jx is drifting away from J programming,
>
> On the contrary, Jx extends J but Jx is firmly tied to J.
>
>> perhaps we should also move this kind of discussion to the chat
>> forum?)
>
> I do not subscribe to the chat forum. Perhaps we should postpone this kind
> of discussion until Jx v1.1 is released?
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Raul
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Won't this destroy adverb trains?
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
>> <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Jx version 1.1, not yet released, allows adverbs and conjunctions to act
>> on
>> > boxed verbs, adverbs and conjunctions (see [0] for the motivation),
>>
>> A train is a deferred action syntactic construct.
>>
>> It seems to me that by preventing the deferral you prevent the train
>> from forming.
>>
>> (Put differently: since Jx is drifting away from J programming,
>> perhaps we should also move this kind of discussion to the chat
>> forum?)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Raul
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
>> <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What is "this"?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Won't this destroy adverb trains?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Raul
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
>> >> <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Inline comments follow...
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi all !
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I tried out the functionality of Jx and got some problems.
>> >> >> I expected these two expressions to be equivalent, but got syntax
>> error
>> >> >> on the second.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> +(".. '/') 1 2 3
>> >> >> 6
>> >> >> +(".. [: / ]:) 1 2 3
>> >> >
>> >> > One issue is that ]: is an adverb and adverbs can only act on nouns
>> and
>> >> > verbs. Adverbs and conjunctions must be provided as atomic
>> >> representations
>> >> > or equivalent. The current documentation is incomplete and will be
>> >> fixed;
>> >> > thank you for noticing this problem.
>> >> >
>> >> > To wit, the adverb can be boxed using ]: as follows,
>> >> >
>> >> > an=. <@:((":0) ,&< ]) NB. Atomizing a noun (or verb, adverb or
>> >> > conjunction)
>> >> >
>> >> > [: (/an) ]: NB. (/an) is the Jx train (a v)
>> >> > ┌─┐
>> >> > │/│
>> >> > └─┘
>> >> >
>> >> > or,
>> >> >
>> >> > [: (/("..inv)) ]:
>> >> > ┌─┐
>> >> > │/│
>> >> > └─┘
>> >> >
>> >> > ([: (/("..inv)) ]:) -: (([: (/an) ]:))
>> >> > 1
>> >> >
>> >> > A single / can be boxed directly as well,
>> >> >
>> >> > /<
>> >> > ┌─┐
>> >> > │/│
>> >> > └─┘
>> >> >
>> >> > (/<) -: ([: (/("..inv)) ]:)
>> >> > 1
>> >> >
>> >> > Another issue is that evoke (`:6), and consequently ".. , does not
>> act
>> >> on
>> >> > boxed adverbs,
>> >> >
>> >> > ".. (/<)
>> >> > |domain error
>> >> > | "..(/<)
>> >> > (/<) (`:6)
>> >> > |domain error
>> >> > | (/<)(`:6)
>> >> >
>> >> > So, one has to write, for instance,
>> >> >
>> >> > +(".. (/an)) 1 2 3
>> >> > 6
>> >> >
>> >> > Jx version 1.1, not yet released, allows adverbs and conjunctions to
>> act
>> >> on
>> >> > boxed verbs, adverbs and conjunctions (see [0] for the motivation),
>> >> >
>> >> > JVERSION
>> >> > Installer: j602a_win.exe
>> >> > Engine: j806/j64/windows/beta/BEST/Jx/2017-08-15T16:31:59
>> >> > Library: 6.02.023
>> >> >
>> >> > +(".. (/<)) 1 2 3
>> >> > 6
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> |syntax error
>> >> >> | +("..[:/]:)1 2 3
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I had problems with Knot until I recognized that it is `. and not
>> `: as
>> >> >> the description says.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "|`:|Knot (Gerund) – is similar to the J primitive|`|(tie) except
>> that
>> >> a
>> >> >> non-boxed noun argument is first replaced by its atomic
>> >> representation."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> +`.1
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ┌─┬─────┐
>> >> >> │+│┌─┬─┐│
>> >> >> │ ││0│1││
>> >> >> │ │└─┴─┘│
>> >> >> └─┴─────┘
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Right, the documentation will be fixed; thank you for the feedback.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> I had problems with Cloak. I managed to use it but didn't understand
>> >> >> what it is for.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> AtDot=: 2 : (':';'[ v^:_1 u at v')
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1 0 1 -AtDot# 4 5 6
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _4 0 _6
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1 0 1 -(2 ?: 5!:1<'AtDot')# 4 5 6
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _4 0 _6
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The example gives syntax error. Missing parenthesis.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (;:'ver conj adv')=. _3 _2 _1<@?:"0) 0
>> >> >>
>> >> >> |syntax error
>> >> >>
>> >> >> | (;:'ver conj adv')=: _3 _2 _1<@?:"0)0
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (;:'ver conj adv')=. _3 _2 _1<@?:("0) 0
>> >> >
>> >> > Right, I used this properly in the Appendix of my post [1] but
>> somehow a
>> >> > parenthesis got missing in the documentation; it will be fixed.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ver
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (_3?:0)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> conj
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (_2?:0)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> adv
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (_1?:0)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I guess you can use Jx to define adverbs and conjunctions in tacit
>> >> code,
>> >> >> but I didn't understand how.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > The verb ver verbs adverbs (as monadic verbs) and conjunctions (as
>> >> dyadic
>> >> > verbs), conj and adv are the reverse operations (i.e., adv
>> adverbs a
>> >> > monadic verb and conj conjuncts a dyadic verb) so to speak. This
>> might
>> >> > help to clarify the concepts a little,
>> >> >
>> >> > u (/ver)adv NB. (/ver) is an (a v) Jx train
>> >> > u/
>> >> >
>> >> > u (ver(<'/'))adv NB. ver acting on an atomic representation
>> >> > u/
>> >> >
>> >> > u ((ver adv)@:)conj v NB. ((ver adv)@:) is an (a c) Jx train
>> >> > u@:v
>> >> >
>> >> > u (ver(<'@:'))conj v NB. ver acting on an atomic representation
>> >> > u@:v
>> >> >
>> >> > You got it right, adv and conj allows one to write any arbitrary
>> >> tacit
>> >> > adverbs and conjunctions by reducing those to writing tacit verbs
>> >> (i.e., u
>> >> > adv and v conj where u is monadic verb and v is dyadic verb).
>> >> >
>> >> > What makes it easy is the fact that primitive nonnumerical verbs are
>> >> > higher-order functions (i.e., able to act on nouns verbs adverbs and
>> >> > conjunctions, or produce nouns verbs adverbs and conjunctions, or both
>> >> but
>> >> > the official interpreters makes it almost impossible to use them as
>> such;
>> >> > Jx makes it easy).
>> >> >
>> >> > For example,
>> >> >
>> >> > toj ": adv
>> >> > toj
>> >> > $ (toj ": adv)
>> >> > 3
>> >> > fix=. f.ver
>> >> >
>> >> > toJ ":@:fix adv
>> >> > ((10{a.) I.@(e.&(13{a.))@]} ])@:(#~ -.@((13 10{a.)&E.@,))
>> >> > $(toJ ":@:fix adv)
>> >> > 57
>> >> > u (,&:<)conj v NB. Boxing u and v
>> >> > ┌─┬─┐
>> >> > │u│v│
>> >> > └─┴─┘
>> >> > $(u (,&:<)conj v)
>> >> > 2
>> >> >
>> >> > dex=. ]conj
>> >> >
>> >> > type'dex'
>> >> > ┌───────────┐
>> >> > │conjunction│
>> >> > └───────────┘
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > + dex -
>> >> > -
>> >> >
>> >> > lev=. [conj
>> >> >
>> >> > + lev -
>> >> > +
>> >> >
>> >> > You might like to check also the Appendix I mentioned for more
>> examples.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Erling
>> >> >
>> >> > I really appreciate your interest and patience.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > References
>> >> >
>> >> > [0] [Jprogramming] Boxed verbs as alternate gerunds Jose Mario
>> Quintana
>> >> > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017-
>> >> August/048145.html
>> >> >
>> >> > [1] [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release Jose Mario Quintana
>> >> > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017-
>> >> August/048143.html
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Erling Hellenäs <
>> >> erl...@erlinghellenas.se>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi all !
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I tried out the functionality of Jx and got some problems.
>> >> >> I expected these two expressions to be equivalent, but got syntax
>> error
>> >> on
>> >> >> the second.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> +(".. '/') 1 2 3
>> >> >> 6
>> >> >> +(".. [: / ]:) 1 2 3
>> >> >> |syntax error
>> >> >> | +("..[:/]:)1 2 3
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I had problems with Knot until I recognized that it is `. and not `:
>> as
>> >> >> the description says.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "|`:|Knot (Gerund) – is similar to the J primitive|`|(tie) except
>> that a
>> >> >> non-boxed noun argument is first replaced by its atomic
>> representation."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> +`.1
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ┌─┬─────┐
>> >> >> │+│┌─┬─┐│
>> >> >> │ ││0│1││
>> >> >> │ │└─┴─┘│
>> >> >> └─┴─────┘
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I had problems with Cloak. I managed to use it but didn't understand
>> >> what
>> >> >> it is for.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> AtDot=: 2 : (':';'[ v^:_1 u@v')
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1 0 1 -AtDot# 4 5 6
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _4 0 _6
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1 0 1 -(2 ?: 5!:1<'AtDot')# 4 5 6
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _4 0 _6
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The example gives syntax error. Missing parenthesis.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (;:'ver conj adv')=. _3 _2 _1<@?:"0) 0
>> >> >>
>> >> >> |syntax error
>> >> >>
>> >> >> | (;:'ver conj adv')=: _3 _2 _1<@?:"0)0
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (;:'ver conj adv')=. _3 _2 _1<@?:("0) 0
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ver
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (_3?:0)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> conj
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (_2?:0)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> adv
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (_1?:0)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I guess you can use Jx to define adverbs and conjunctions in tacit
>> code,
>> >> >> but I didn't understand how.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Erling
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 2017-08-01 22:55, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> 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/forum
>> s.htm
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------
>> >> >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forum
>> s.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
