So, you are saying in Jx (as opposed to J), that
(;:'adv ver')=. _1 _3 <@?:("0) 0
train=. "..
At=. (ver adv@:)&:train/ f.adv
would be equivalent to
at=: (<'@:') ,@<@, <@,
Except that perhaps its result would actually be a different kind of
result? (I am not quite clear on that last part...)
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The tricky task is to produce a tacit verb f (satisfying the restrictions
> imposed by Rob). In any case, this is how a fixed tacit variant of Raul's
> verb can be produced in Jx from scratch (verbose writing for clarity),
>
> (;:'adv ver')=. _1 _3 <@?:("0) 0
> NB. (;:'adv ver')=. _1 _3 <@?: 0 in Jx 1.1
> train=. "..
>
> (ver adv@:)&:train/f. +:`-:`*:
> +:@:(-:@:*:)
>
> The twist is that the non-compliant verb produces directly the wanted verb
> as opposed to its gerundial counterpart and @: is used instead of @ (as it
> was specified in the original request).
> The black magic can be hidden by producing an adverb instead,
>
> At=. (ver adv@:)&:train/ f.adv
> +:`-:`*: At
> +:@:(-:@:*:)
>
> There is a minor issue because dyadic verbs and conjunctions do not
> associate the same way; but, it is easy to fix,
>
> At=. (ver adv@:)~&:train/@:|. f.adv
> +:`-:`*: At
> +:@:-:@:*:
>
> An array of boxed verbs can also be the adverb's argument,
>
> [:+:-:*:]: At
> +:@:-:@:*:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:33 AM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> tacit version from jpp,
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/Pascal-J/jpp
>>
>>
>> +: ` -: ` *: cc:: @
>> +:@-:@*:
>>
>> or
>>
>> +: , ] `+/ % # C:: @
>>
>> (+: , ])@(+/ % #)
>>
>> '+: , ] ` + / % #' gg cc '@' 1 2 3
>> 4 2
>>
>>
>> underlying code is pretty short though, (except for aar dependencies)
>>
>> strinsert =: 1 : ' [ , u , ]'
>> eval =: 1 : ' a: 1 : m'
>> isNoun =: (0 = 4!:0 ::0:)@:<
>> aar =: 1 : 'if. isNoun ''u'' do. q =. m eval else. q =. u end. 5!:1 <
>> ''q'' '
>>
>> cc =: 2 : 'm`(v aar)@.(_1 strinsert/ i.#m)'
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Raul Miller <[email protected]>
>> To: Programming forum <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2017 10:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Gerund composed application
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, sorry, I had not read your original post close enough. That's a
>> bad habit, and I need to do better on reading other people's concepts.
>>
>> That said, I can offer some variants on Jose's approach:
>>
>> at=:4 :0
>> x`:6@:(y`:6)`''
>> )
>>
>> Example use:
>> at/(]`{.`{:`{:)
>>
>> Or, equivalently:
>>
>> at=: (<'@:') ,@<@, <@,
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Raul
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Rob Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Thanks for replying Raul, your solutions weren't what I was looking for,
>> > but I understand the confusion from my first explanation.
>> >
>> > Jose your first solution worked perfectly, thanks very much! The other
>> two
>> > solutions you gave caused syntax errors for me, must be different
>> versions,
>> > I'm on 604.
>> >
>> > What did you mean by compliant and non-compliant in your comments?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Rob
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
