Your sentences here are built from conjunctions.
If I add redundant parenthesis (to show parsing order),
3&{. ` , ` }. `: 0 a
would become
((((3&{.) ` ,) ` }.) `: 0) a
And, similarly,
3&{. ` , ` 3&}. `: 0 a
would become
(((((3&{.) ` ,) ` 3)&}.) `: 0) a
The domain error is because ` expects nouns to be gerunds, but 3 is a
number. (That the resulting expression would not be what you intended
is something of a coincidence, but the language flags enough errors
that errors become likely when you get into that kind of situation.)
3&{.`,`3
|domain error
As for what you are trying to simplify... I must admit that I'm not
entirely sure yet what you are going for there. Or, at least, not
anything where a simplification jumped out at me.
I hope this helps,
--
Raul
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Jimmy Gauvin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yes, your comments are definitely helpful and appreciated.
>
> To be more specific, I think that the first and last lines are a nice fit
> for the under conjunction but I feel my tacit construct has too many
> parentheses.
>
> I was wondering if there was a way to simplify it. Gerunds might help, but
> I'll have to delve deeper in their use as I only started using them in
> problem 8 to implement the comparison operations.
>
> Some of the syntax still puzzles me :
>
> 3&{. ` , ` }. `: 0 a=:1+i.5
> 1 2 3 0 0
> 1 2 3 4 5
> 2 3 4 5 0
>
> 3&{. ` , ` 3&}. `: 0 a
> |domain error
> | 3&{.`,`3&}.`:0 a
>
> 3&{. ` , ` (3&}.) `: 0 a
> 1 2 3 0 0
> 1 2 3 4 5
> 4 5 0 0 0
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> For part 1, I implemented something like that explicitly.
>>
>> For part 2, I went with an argument of pos,skip,list (which might be
>> more amenable to a tacit representation of part 1). But my gut feeling
>> is that this one is messy enough that it's more comprehensible to
>> stick with an explicit representation.
>>
>> Using t like you are doing here prevents it from being an argument
>> (which you'll want, I imagine, for your code to work on both the AoC
>> test cases and the "real value" they supply).
>>
>> That said, if I went full tacit, I'd either be using the gerund form
>> for } - or I'd work out how to do it without } in the mix.
>>
>> Not sure this helps... but you didn't really ask a specific question,
>> so maybe this will be close enough.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Raul
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Jimmy Gauvin <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > would anyone care to comment on the transformation of this piece of code
>> to
>> > tacit notation?
>> >
>> > v being the 256 element vector
>> > c being the current position
>> > t being the length of the part tot rotate
>> >
>> > NB. v=.c|.v
>> > NB. v=.(|.t{.v),t}.v
>> > NB. v=.(-c)|.v
>> >
>> > v=.( |.&(t&{.) , t&}. ) &. (c&|.) v
>> >
>> > 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
