I agree with your analysis to that extent that I think it shows a
discrepancy between the Dictionary and the implementation, and also some
ambiguity and error in the Dictionary.
I think the current implementation is what we want it to be. Therefore I
think the Dictionary should change.
My changes would be as follows:
1. A gerund is an atom or list, every atom of which is the AR of a verb.
2. In [email protected], m`:n, m}, ^:n, and all partitioning modifiers, the operand
that can hold ARs must be a gerund.
3. In [email protected], the result of the execution of v must be an atom (if you
omit this rule this could be a nonce error, but tomorrow will never come)
4. In [email protected], the atoms of m can be any valid ARs and the result can be
any of the principal parts of speech.
In all future discussions, my words will conform to those changes.
Henry Rich
On 9/6/2018 11:48 AM, Raul Miller wrote:
http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/d621.htm
1) The dictionary states that [email protected] must be a verb.
It seem to me that [email protected] and [email protected] are different.
2) The dictionary specifically talks about selecting trains.
It seems to me that (1 % -) is a train.
-----
In other words, a constraint on the result of @. does not seem
adequate to eliminate from gerunds the atomic representations of
things which are not verbs. That interpretation prevents @. from
constructing valid trains.
(Though, granted, that interpretation does describe the current
implementation. I'm just trying to point out the conflict between the
implementation and the dictionary.)
-----
Does my disagreement make sense to you?
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
