Yes, I am aware of incompatibilities. :) > Could you replace the level with a positive constant or a negative constant under the new definition?
I suspect that the easiest way to faithfully emulate the current adverb L:_1, or more generally L: r (for negative value r) would be based on its current definition (i.e., in terms of L:, L., r, [x] and y). Do you have a model for the proposed change? Can the proposed behavior of u L: r for negative r be described just as u ((&.>)...(&.>)) where (&.>) is repeated -r times? > It would be pretty simple to look through your code for for L:_, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, in my case, it would be complicated. There are, I guess, a few instances of L:_1, which would be incompatible, hidden in probably just a handful of applications coded, partially or in full, by others and me. They are hidden because the code is encrypted (to avoid surprises). So, all the applications would have to be decrypted or regenerated to be inspected. Maybe, it might be easier just to wait for them to fail, hopefully, in a noticeable and unharmful manner. Yet, applications seem to fail when you need them desperately. ;) Oh well, I just might have to deal with this issue, one way or another, eventually. On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > L:, especially the dyad, is so complicated already that it's not worth > changing if complex arguments are needed. > > It would be pretty simple to look through your code for for L:_, wouldn't > it? Do you have more than one occurrence? Could you replace the level > with a positive constant or a negative constant under the new definition? > > As you well know, J has a history of making incompatible changes if they > are improvements to the language. > > Henry Rich > > > On 7/28/2018 7:11 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > >> I have, at least, produced code which includes L:_1 in a context in which >> it is not equivalent to &.>. >> >> Have you considered to get what you want without potentially breaking >> existing code (e.g., giving meaning to imaginary whole numbers for the >> right argument of L:)? >> >> (It seems that you wrote L" instead of L: a couple of times in the >> description of your proposal.) >> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think negative level is wrongly defined. (u L:(-r) y) applies u at >>> level ((L. y) -r), which measures from the bottom of the tree. What I >>> want >>> is a form that applies u two levels down, say, which I can't get now. I >>> propose to change L: to do what I want. >>> >>> Has anyone found a use for L:(-r) using the current definition? >>> >>> My proposed change is described at https://code.jsoftware.com/wik >>> i/System/Interpreter/Requests#Change_definition_of_negative_ >>> level_.28strawman.29 >>> >>> Henry Rich >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>> https://www.avg.com >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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
