Henry wrote: > As I recall, Ye Dic says that gerunds are created by the tie conjunction, > and ipso facto are verbs or nouns. Every mention of the use of a gerund > implicitly assumes that an evoked atom of a gerund is a verb. > > m in [email protected] and n in u^:n, if gerunds, are the same type as far as I am > concerned.
Given the Dictionary's text for the entries, Tie http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/d610.htm and Agenda http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/d621.htm My understanding is that the sentence, (;:'+/')@.0 1 +/ is legal (i.e., sanctioned by the dictionary). You apparently think it is not legal. Why? The following are two examples of code, not written by me, which would become clearly illegal if, by definition, a gerund becomes just a list of atomic representations of verbs (and would no longer run if it is enforced), Arithmetic evaluation https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Arithmetic_evaluation#J and Cap http://www.jsoftware.com/svn/DanBron/trunk/environment/at2cap.ijs On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > As I recall, Ye Dic says that gerunds are created by the tie conjunction, > and ipso facto are verbs or nouns. Every mention of the use of a gerund > implicitly assumes that an evoked atom of a gerund is a verb. > > m in [email protected] and n in u^:n, if gerunds, are the same type as far as I am > concerned. I don't understand your last sentence (specifically what you > mean by 'array type', which to me is > literal/boolean.../verb/adverb/conjunction; > and what 'positions of a parsed verb' are). > > Henry Rich > > > On 9/4/2018 10:31 AM, Raul Miller wrote: > >> Can you be more specific? >> >> I don’t remember the dictionary making this assertion. >> >> I am also wondering why you would want a different concept of gerund for >> @. >> and ^: (or, generally speaking, why you would want a different array type >> for different positions in a parsed verb). >> >> Thanks, >> >> — >> Raul >> >> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> That's not Dictionary behavior, though. It shouldn't. >>> >>> Henry Rich >>> >>> On 9/4/2018 9:42 AM, Raul Miller wrote: >>> >>> @. also accepts the ARs of non-verbs. >>>> >>>> For example: >>>> >>>> V=:p:i.9 >>>> (+/%#)`(<(,'0');V)@.0 V >>>> 11.1111 >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>> 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
