The proposal,

http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/System/Interpreter/Requests#
Fast_Function_Definition

is also similar to a very old idea,

http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-December/017425.html

with the innovation  "m is chosen based on occurrence of xyuvmn"

:)


On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't agree that "someone else has to fill in the details". Maybe
> someone else has to implement it, but to get them interested there needs to
> be a detailed proposal, and you're probably the only person motivated to
> create one.
>
> The great thing about tacit forms is that they span a range from (+/ % #)
> up to complex multiline verbs.  What distinguishes them is that they have
> no word indicating an argument.
>
> It appears that you are adding words ] [ to indicate arguments. Why not
> just use the system words x and y?  Then your proposal is very similar to
>
> http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/System/Interpreter/Requests#
> Fast_Function_Definition
>
> isn't it?
>
> Henry Rich
>
>
> On 9/26/2017 9:31 AM, Erling Hellenäs wrote:
>
>> Hi all !
>>
>> If there is an interest in implementing this, someone else has to fill in
>> the details.
>>
>> The easiest way to get this to a working implementation might be to
>> include the tacit expressions we have now in the new tacit-v expressions,
>> so that they could be used if the programmer finds a reason.
>>
>> Then there is a question of if the present tacit J expressions might fall
>> into oblivion and we in the future might want to take them away. How that
>> process would be handled in the best way.
>>
>> See comments below.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Erling Hellenäs
>>
>> Den 2017-09-26 kl. 14:35, skrev Raul Miller:
>>
>>> I have a big problem with this: I have no idea what you think you are
>>> saying.
>>>
>>> Taken literally, it looks like a request to merge
>>> https://github.com/andrimne/JWithATwist/blob/master/JWithATw
>>> ist/Parser.fs
>>> (and some other parts of that repo) into J. But I do not know what
>>> problems this would solve that would justify this kind of massive
>>> change to the language.
>>>
>> From my request: "My proposal is not that the tacit-v expressions should
>> be like JWithATwist, but that they should be like explicit J, with the
>> differences mentioned above and some differences mentioned below."
>>
>>>
>>> In my mind, "J's syntax" means the grammatical rules which a computer
>>> follows when evaluating sentences. Specifically, the rules laid out at
>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dicte.htm
>>>
>>> Clearly, your change would require rewriting those rules in some
>>> fashion, and you seem to agree. Your sentence "It should not be
>>> possible to have tacit-t expressions within tacit-v expressions."
>>> suggests that those rules would be abandoned when running your code
>>> instead.
>>>
>>> But what are your new rules?
>>>
>>> J already struggles with documentation issues: We do need examples to
>>> supplement more formal documentation. But that does not mean that
>>> examples without that more formal documentation is going to make
>>> anything easier to understand.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, your "it's not clear" clauses in this proposal, suggest
>>> that you have not really thought through what kind of syntax rules you
>>> are proposing.
>>>
>>> It's like you do not understand what J's syntax is.
>>>
>>> How would the dictionary have to change, to document the changes you
>>> are proposing?
>>>
>>> Or, if this is not really about J programming (and it might not be),
>>> perhaps this kind of thing really belongs in the chat forum?
>>>
>> It's a proposal for a change of the J interpreter, which might be
>> accepted and implemented or not. In full or in part.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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