I am not quite sure what you are asking here, so I hope that I can be forgiven for reviewing some of what I hope are the relevant basics.
Anyways.. here's the full RR(4) parsing table that we are discussing: ---------- EDGE VERB NOUN ANY 0 Monad EDGE+AVN VERB VERB NOUN 1 Monad EDGE+AVN NOUN VERB NOUN 2 Dyad EDGE+AVN VERB+NOUN ADV ANY 3 Adverb EDGE+AVN VERB+NOUN CONJ VERB+NOUN 4 Conj EDGE+AVN VERB VERB VERB 5 Trident EDGE CAVN CAVN CAVN 6 Trident EDGE CAVN CAVN ANY 7 Bident NAME+NOUN ASGN CAVN ANY 8 Is LPAR CAVN RPAR ANY 9 Paren Legend: AVN denotes ADV+VERB+NOUN CAVN denotes CONJ+ADV+VERB+NOUN EDGE denotes MARK+ASGN+LPAR ---------- As you can see, the Trident rules (#5 and #6) come after the Dyad rule that you quoted (#2). Now... to get to the issue where I was saying my thinking was incorrect: While it's true that the handler for the Dyad rule is the one that takes care of the N V N combination, there is nothing prohibiting the handler for the Trident rule from being capable of doing the same thing (or even being the same handler). Whether that would be a good idea or not gets into issues which are probably best saved for a different discussion. (There might or might not be a bit of redundant work with using the same handler for both Dyad and Trident. But somewhat redundant implementation winds up being characteristic of most parser implementations, even if that is not immediately obvious when reviewing the code. The nature of abstraction - how we think about syntax, for example - can easily lead us into conflicting ideas about what should have happened where.) ---------- Anyways, bident and trident are parsing rules - they are a patterns which (in the case of the J parser) are checked against the current four element top of the parsing stack. And, if they match, they identify which tokens are to be handed off to their corresponding handler. (Two parsing elements are handed off for Bident, and three elements are handed off for Trident.) The details of the handler are up to the implementation. (It makes a lot of sense for Bident to have its own "bident handler" and for Trident to have its own "trident handler", but technically the parser could be designed such that they both use the same handler, which then has to figure out for whether it has been given two or three things to be handled.) ---------- Finally, note that whatever happens, the result of the handler will be a single parsing element (a noun, verb, adverb or conjunction) which replaces sequence of elements which were passed to the handler. Does any of this address the questions you were asking? Or, have I totally misunderstood what you were asking about? (If I misunderstood, perhaps you could try asking again in a different way?) Oh, and by the way... the RR(4) notation is somewhat documented at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LR_parser (In other words: right to left parsing, rightmost derivation with 4 token lookahead. ... though, thinking about that, the definition of lookahead might mean that it's technically RR(3) ... that said, the notation itself is perhaps a bit sloppy for describing J's parser.) Thanks, -- Raul On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Erling Hellenäs <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all ! > > Raul: > > "Some of your list of "all possible tridents and bidents" would only be > > possible if other parsing rules were removed or evaded (monad, dyad, > adverb, conjunction). > > For example, the first one you list: > N0 V1 N2 noun x V1 y > " > > http://www.cs.trinity.edu/About/The_Courses/cs2322/jdoc/dict/dicte.htm > > EDGE+AVN NOUN VERB NOUN 2 Dyad > > This is not the same rule? > > If so, why is Bill then confirming that Raul is right? > > Are bidents and tridents the items the interpreter acts on, which could be > nouns, verbs, adverbs or conjunctions, or are they only combinations of > verbs, adverbs and conjunctions? > It seems with tacit J we have no nouns, which means the bidents and tridents > are verbs, adverbs and conjunctions. With explicit J we also have nouns, and > the bidents and tridents can also contain nouns? > The combinations of two and three words in the left column in the document > above are the bidents and tridents? > > Then we have the specific rules, named the bident and trident rules in the > lack of other names? And these names caused some confusion? > > We all say things which are not entirely correct, but if we and others then > try to cover it up, we can create a major confusion. > > Cheers, > > Erling Hellenäs > > > > > On 2017-10-13 17:28, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: >>> >>> Or it looks like I was incorrect, in terms of the thinking that went >> >> behind it. >> >> I would like to make this clear: neither I claimed you were incorrect nor >> correct.. I merely pointed out that the list (specification) to which you >> reacted was not mine. >> >>> Even though the noun train would not handled as a trident by the >>> parser, it looks like Ken had that in mind as a part of the structure >>> of the implementation. >> >> Who's list (specification) was that? >> >> The last word on the page which Dan Bron referred, is "Main" and links to, >> >> http://www.cs.trinity.edu/About/The_Courses/cs2322/jdoc/dict/main1.htm >> >> The beginning of that page reads, >> >> " >> J Dictionary >> >> Roger K.W. Hui >> Kenneth E. Iverson >> >> Copyright 1991-2001, Jsoftware Inc. All Rights Reserved. Last updated: >> 2000-12-02 >> " >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -- >>> Raul >> >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Or it looks like I was incorrect, in terms of the thinking that went >>> behind it. >>> >>> Even though the noun train would not handled as a trident by the >>> parser, it looks like Ken had that in mind as a part of the structure >>> of the implementation. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -- >>> Raul >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:12 PM, bill lam <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Raul is correct, as usual. The train N V N was not handled in the rule >>> >>> for >>>> >>>> trident. Here is the previous pages for execution stack and trains. >>>> Monad >>>> and dyad were checked in the first 3 rules. Rules for trident and bident >>>> were near the bottom. >>>> https://i.imgur.com/2a3mBFS.jpg >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 13, 2017 8:28 AM, "Raul Miller" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ah, it's from http://www.cs.trinity.edu/About/The_Courses/cs2322/jdoc/ >>>>> dict/dictf.htm >>>>> >>>>> (Bill's link did not claim that that example was a trident, as near as >>>>> I can tell.) >>>>> >>>>> That said, I stand by my assertion that J would not treat (N V N) as a >>>>> trident. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Raul >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Jose Mario Quintana >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> That is not "my" list, check carefully Dan Bron's PS in the first >>> >>> link I >>>>>> >>>>>> provided or Bill's link earlier in this thread. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some of your list of "all possible tridents and bidents" would only >>> >>> be >>>>>>> >>>>>>> possible if other parsing rules were removed or evaded (monad, dyad, >>>>>>> adverb, conjunction). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For example, the first one you list: >>>>>>> N0 V1 N2 noun x V1 y >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This would typically be a dyad, and I cannot think of any way for it >>>>>>> to be treated as a triad (it's true, of course, that when you modify >>>>>>> the interpreter it's true that you can alter it in any way you see >>> >>> fit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - but it's difficult to think of this result as being J). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Was that your intent, or am I missing something? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Or... if you really meant to be discussing not "J" but more "a topic >>>>>>> which might interest some people in the J community", shouldn't this >>>>>>> kind of discussion go on in a different forum? Perhaps chat?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Raul >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Jose Mario Quintana >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A common goal of the Jx trains and many of the Jx primitives and >>>>> >>>>> foreign >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> conjunction entities is to lift J's draconian (tacit) >>> >>> function-level >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> restrictions. Jx facilitates tacit verbs, adverbs, and >>> >>> conjunctions >>>>> >>>>> to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> act >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> on nouns, verbs, adverbs and, conjunctions and >>>>>>>> produce nouns, verbs, adverbs and, conjunctions. That is, almost >>> >>> any >>>>>>> >>>>>>> type >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> entity can act on any type entity to produce any type entity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Jx trains are either completely new or extended >>> >>> implementations of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> current or former trains. The Jx trains conform to the general >>>>> >>>>> scheme of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the Parse Table shown on page 2 of the Cheatsheet and the only >>>>> >>>>> difference >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> vs the current J Parse Table is the Trident parsing entry. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This extra entry might have a potential negative effect in Jx's >>>>>>> >>>>>>> performance >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> vs J; after all, that was one of the reasons given for dropping the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Trains >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> of the Golden Age (for reference I am including, at the end of this >>>>>>> >>>>>>> post, a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> text version which most likely matches the one in the link that >>> >>> Bill >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> provided earlier). How important is the performance penalty? I >>>>> >>>>> would be >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> surprised if it is significant; one could try to quantify it >>> >>> although >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> usual caveats would apply (e.g., repeat the experiments several >>> >>> times >>>>> >>>>> to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> confirm results). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First, a few useful definitions follow to facilitate the >>> >>> discussion, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> o=. @: >>>>>>>> 'adv conj ver'=. _1 _2 _3 <@?: 0 >>>>>>>> fix=. f. ver NB. (a v) form >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a v <-> v(a) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This form is non-compliant; thus, it is intrinsic only to Jx. One >>> >>> can >>>>>>> >>>>>>> use >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> this form, for instance, to produce easily arrays with single or >>>>> >>>>> multiple >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> boxed adverb arguments and verbs (or adverbs or conjunctions) can >>> >>> act >>>>> >>>>> on >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the array. For example, a single boxed adverb, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /< >>>>>>>> ┌─┐ >>>>>>>> │/│ >>>>>>>> └─┘ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and multiple boxed adverbs, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [:(/\<) (items < o fix o ":) (table < o fix o ":)]: >>>>>>>> ┌──┬───┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────── >>>>> >>>>> ──────────┐ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> │/\│"_1│1 : (':'; '(((#~LF-.@e.])5!:5<''u'');,.y),.({.;}.)":x,y >>>>> >>>>> u/x')~│ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> └──┴───┴──────────────────────────────────────────────────── >>>>> >>>>> ──────────┘ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This form also helps to avoid quoting adverbs. Apart from >>> >>> aesthetical >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> effects (my aesthetics anyway), it allows the verb xi, which I have >>>>>>>> mentioned before, to refer directly to an adverb (or adverbs) >>> >>> within a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sentence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> x (a a) <-> (x a) a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This form corresponds to the entry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A0 A1 adv (x A0) A1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> of the Parse Table of the Golden Age. To my knowledge, it has not >>>>> >>>>> been >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> fully implemented before. Currently, J only works if the product >>> >>> of >>>>> >>>>> (x >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is a noun or a verb (there have been discussions about producing >>> >>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> train >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if the product of (x a) is an adverb. Jx implements that and also >>> >>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> case >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> when the product of (x a) is a conjunction. This is very useful >>> >>> when >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> writing tacit adverbs as a train of adverbs: if ((x a) a) produces >>> >>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> desired product then the adverb (a a) would work because (x (a a) >>> >>> <-> >>>>> >>>>> (x >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a). For example, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'items' ((~ver) adv) / >>>>>>>> items/ >>>>>>>> 'items' (((~ver) adv) /) >>>>>>>> items/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'items' ('x~' (adverb :)) / >>>>>>>> items/ >>>>>>>> 'items' (('x~' (adverb :)) \) >>>>>>>> items\ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The last line produces instead a syntax error in J. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a c <-> (c)a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This form is non-compliant; thus, it is also intrinsic only to Jx. >>>>> >>>>> Its >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> motivation parallels the one for the form (a v <-> v(a)). For >>>>>>> >>>>>>> example, a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> single boxed conjunction, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <adv (`/) >>>>>>>> ┌───┐ >>>>>>>> │` /│ >>>>>>>> └───┘ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and multiple boxed conjunctions, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [:(<adv") (< o fix o ": adv bind)]: >>>>>>>> ┌─┬─────────────┐ >>>>>>>> │"│2 : 'x@(y"_)'│ >>>>>>>> └─┴─────────────┘ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Jx extensions of the corresponding Golden age entries, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> x (c a) y <-> x c y a : C0 A1 conj (x C0 y) A1 >>>>>>>> x (a c a) y <-> (x a) c (y a) : A0 C1 A2 conj (x A0) C1 (y A2) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> deserve, in my opinion, a separate thread. I will try to start one >>>>>>> >>>>>>> during >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the weekend (time permitting). Succinctly, the two trains (the >>> >>> first >>>>>>> >>>>>>> one, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> in particular) are powerful enough that if they were restored in >>>>>>> >>>>>>> official J >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> interpreters then conjunctional tacit programming would be >>> >>> virtually >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> complete as opposed to impossible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I hope it helps, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PS. I wish I had more time to read and respond to posts more >>>>> >>>>> frequently; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> however, most of the time, I eventually respond if I feel I can >>> >>> still >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> contribute. Thank you for your patience. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Train Table of the Golden Age >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (see, >>>>>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009- >>>>> >>>>> December/017146.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> December/017145.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The following tables define all possible tridents and bidents, >>> >>> using >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> italics to denote the optional left arguments of (ambivalent) >>> >>> verbs: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> N0 V1 N2 noun x V1 y >>>>>>>> V0 V1 V2 verb (x V0 y) V1 (x V2 y) >>>>>>>> V0 V1 C2 conj V0 V1 (x C2 y) >>>>>>>> A0 V1 V2 adv (x A0) V1 V2 >>>>>>>> C0 V1 V2 conj (x C0 y) V1 V2 >>>>>>>> C0 V1 C2 conj (x C0 y) V1 (x C2 y) >>>>>>>> A0 A1 V2 conj (x A0) (y A1) V2 >>>>>>>> A0 A1 A2 adv ((x A0) A1) A2 >>>>>>>> C0 A1 A2 conj ((x C0 y) A1) A2 >>>>>>>> N0 C1 N2 verb x (N0 C1 N2) y >>>>>>>> N0 C1 V2 verb x (N0 C1 V2) y >>>>>>>> N0 C1 A2 adv N0 C1 (x A2) >>>>>>>> N0 C1 C2 conj N0 C1 (x C2 y) >>>>>>>> V0 C1 N2 verb x (V0 C1 N2) y >>>>>>>> V0 C1 V2 verb x (V0 C1 V2) y >>>>>>>> V0 C1 A2 adv V0 C1 (x A2) >>>>>>>> V0 C1 C2 conj V0 C1 (x C2 y) >>>>>>>> A0 C1 N2 adv (x A0) C1 N2 >>>>>>>> A0 C1 V2 adv (x A0) C1 V2 >>>>>>>> A0 C1 A2 conj (x A0) C1 (y A2) >>>>>>>> A0 C1 C2 conj (x A0) C1 (x C2 y) >>>>>>>> C0 C1 N2 conj (x C0 y) C1 N2 >>>>>>>> C0 C1 V2 conj (x C0 y) C1 V2 >>>>>>>> C0 C1 A2 conj (x C0 y) C1 (y A2) >>>>>>>> C0 C1 C2 conj (x C0 y) C1 (x C2 y) >>>>>>>> N0 A1 verb x (N0 A1) y >>>>>>>> N0 C1 adv N0 C1 x >>>>>>>> V0 N1 noun V0 y >>>>>>>> V0 V1 verb x (or y) V0 V1 y >>>>>>>> V0 A1 verb x (V0 A1) y >>>>>>>> V0 C1 adv V0 C1 x >>>>>>>> A0 V1 adv (x A0) V1 >>>>>>>> A0 A1 adv (x A0) A1 >>>>>>>> A0 C1 adv (x A0) C1 x >>>>>>>> C0 N1 adv x C0 N1 >>>>>>>> C0 V1 adv x C0 V1 >>>>>>>> C0 A1 conj (x C0 y) A1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Erling Hellenäs < >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all ! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have a hard time finding the new rules among these old rules. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While in the Jx description x and y denotes verbs, in Ken Iversons >>>>>>>>> description they denote nouns? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Take the bident a0 v1. According to Ken Iverson it should be >>> >>> parsed >>>>> >>>>> as >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (x >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a0) v1, while in Jx, using the same notation, it is parsed as (v1 >>>>> >>>>> a0) y >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does Jx represent a new way of thinking about how these trains >>> >>> should >>>>>>> >>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> parsed, which Ken Iverson did not have? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Erling Hellenäs >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Den 2017-10-12 kl. 04:09, skrev bill lam: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As mentioned earlier, ancient J had a more complete set of >>>>>>>>>> rules for tridents and bidents. This is what availbale in >>>>>>>>>> J circa 1994 (23 years ago) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://i.imgur.com/OtBZZq1.jpg >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the good old days, adverbs and conjunctions can be >>>>>>>>>> written without explicit definitions, albeit only very >>>>>>>>>> few can manage to do that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ср, 11 окт 2017, Erling Hellenäs написал(а): >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I finally managed to understand Cloak. I then with interest >>> >>> studied >>>>>>> >>>>>>> these >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> new syntax rules: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> av ↔ v(a) >>>>>>>>>>> x(a a) ↔ (x a) a >>>>>>>>>>> ac ↔ (c)a >>>>>>>>>>> x(c a) y ↔ x c y a >>>>>>>>>>> x(a c a) y ↔ (x a) c (y a) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It all seemed logical and nice. I just wonder about the thoughts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> behind. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What is the logic behind these rules? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I also wonder if there are any negative effects of having these >>>>> >>>>> rules. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Erling Hellenäs >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-09-30 23:27, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jx 1.1 Release >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A Jx v1.1 Extensions Guide, a J/Jx Cheatsheet, a Jx Assertions >>>>> >>>>> script >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> together with links to a Windows 64 bit dll, a Unix 64 bit so >>>>>>> >>>>>>> binaries >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (without avx support) and the patch corresponding to the J806 >>>>> >>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (beta-6) can be found at the link [0]. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Summary >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Primitives >>>>>>>>>>>> Added =.. =:: $:: [. ]. ]: ".. `. &:.(*) ?:(*) i.. O. >>>>>>>>>>>> Extended ~ $. >>>>>>>>>>>> Modified " (*) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Foreign >>>>>>>>>>>> Added 104!:5 Unnamed Execution 102!:0/1 In-place >>>>>>>>>>>> Amend/Append (*) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Trains >>>>>>>>>>>> a v Added >>>>>>>>>>>> a a Extended >>>>>>>>>>>> c a Resurrected and extended (*) >>>>>>>>>>>> a c a Resurrected and extended (*) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Spelling >>>>>>>>>>>> Names with Unicode characters >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (*) New Jx 1.1 feature >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This release introduces a modified primitive (") and, in >>> >>> theory, >>>>> >>>>> for >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> first time an incompatibility vs the official J counterpart >>> >>> (J806 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> beta-6) ; >>>>>>>>>>>> however, in practice, it is highly unlikely to break any >>> >>> existent >>>>>>> >>>>>>> code >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> doubters have an opportunity to test their code. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is a simple 1-decade-old example [1], >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ]`|."1 i.5 6 >>>>>>>>>>>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 >>>>>>>>>>>> 11 10 9 8 7 6 >>>>>>>>>>>> 12 13 14 15 16 17 >>>>>>>>>>>> 23 22 21 20 19 18 >>>>>>>>>>>> 24 25 26 27 28 29 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> See also the threads [2, 3] for recent discussions. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The rank of the verb ?: has been changed to 0 0 0 to make it >>>>> >>>>> easier >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> use. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Three venerable facilities are released: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - The conjunction (&:.), for the motivation, see the post [4] >>> >>> (see >>>>>>> >>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> post [5] both, its reference and the embedded discussion for >>>>> >>>>> similar >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>> recent ideas). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - 102!:0/1 In-place Amend/Append, be very careful (see [6]); if >>>>> >>>>> you >>>>>>> >>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>> know what to expect, play with their corresponding models >>> >>> instead. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> PS. There are a couple of other goodies which will be >>> >>> documented >>>>>>> >>>>>>> later. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> References >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0] Jx 1.1 Release >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.2bestsystems.com/foundation/j/jx1.1 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] [Jprogramming] zig-zag order Oleg Kobchenko >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2006- >>>>> >>>>> November >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> /004188.htm >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] [Jprogramming] How m"n shoulda been defined Henry Rich >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015- >>>>> >>>>> August/0 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 42512.html >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [3] [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release Henry Rich >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017- >>>>> >>>>> August/0 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 48124.html >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [4] [Jforum] Wasted intermediate values Jose Mario Quintana >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2003-March/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 014488.html >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [5] [Jprogramming] Fold/reduce with initial value? R.E. Boss >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015- >>>>> >>>>> February >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> /041015.html >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [6] [Jprogramming] Tacit J and indexed replacement Jose Mario >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quintana >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2014- >>>>> >>>>> July/038 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 515.html >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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/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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
