Why not add the cyclic gerund functionality to u`:n? We've got a plethora of unassigned values for n, and this would not introduce any new inconsistency that could break existing code.
Thanks, -- Raul On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > On further consideration and or what is worth, I second your proposal. > > I would like to suggest to go even further and make no exceptions even for > the case when n is _ . Why? First, because I do not like > inconsistencies and the main point of changing " is to make consistent > with other modifiers. Second, if I am not mistaken, for practical > purposes, a current case m"_ where m is a gerund could be replaced by > m"99 (even taking into account that arrays (and gerunds) of dimensions > much more larger than 99 are possible). Last, Jx's ":: would be > unnecessary. > > Yes, it would not be strictly compatible either and the likelihood of > breaking some code would be slightly higher compared to your proposal but > it would still be very low and a remedy appears to be straightforward. > Furthermore, this would be hardly the first time that a worthy incompatible > change in the interpreter is introduced. > > > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Jose Mario Quintana < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I also thought that it would be unlikely to brake any existing code [0]. >> It was implemented as " and broke an important code I had written! That >> is why it was reimplemented as ":: instead. >> >> [0] [Jprogramming] How m"n shoulda been defined Jose Mario Quintana >> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015- >> August/042539.html >> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 < >>> >>>>> [email protected]> 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/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
