On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > RM> That said, describing the purpose of hg (and why one would want to use > RM> hg instead of av) is eluding me at the moment. Maybe when I wake up > RM> some more I would be better prepared to address this. > > The hg specification states that the argument for the workhorse verb is the > atomic representation (ar) of hg's argument (which can be a verb or a noun).
(rest of message trimmed, so I can focus on this issue.) Yes, this is true. And the result of that verb is expected to be (roughly speaking) an atomic representation of the result of the hg derived adverb. But ... thinking this through... for this to be useful we should also have some mechanism for replacing-at-depth, and we also need to be able to chain in other operations. Consider, for example, using the 0: and 1: verbs as placeholders in a gerund and substituting in a verb for the 0: argument and a boxed copy of a noun for the 1: argument in this gerund template: 0:&.>/\.&.(,&1:)&.|.&.(<"_1) a0 hg gives us a way of defining these transformations as verbs, but we still need to define those verbs... Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
