I think it is a misrepresentation to report Roger's saying that
extending the meaning of [email protected] had merit as indicating his inclination to
do so. I too can see the merit in it, but greater demerit, because it
makes for more run-time checking to handle cases of highly dubious interest.
Roger left his mantle around here somewhere, but it's way too big for me
- I think it was Ken's once. All I can say is that I stand by my
interpretation (which seems borne out by your historical references) and
have no interest in changing the implementation. I will update NuVoc,
though.
Henry Rich
On 9/6/2018 2:24 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
Raul wrote:
[2] When I look at the dictionary page for agenda, it does *not* state
that m must be a gerund for the [email protected] case -- it only states that
requirement on the [email protected] case (where it's trivial to know the result at
parse time).
However, the Dictionary merely says "The case [email protected] uses the result of the
verb v to perform the selection." which could be interpreted as [email protected] just
being a variant of [email protected] where the result of the verb v is used to perform
the selection. I asked, a long time ago, the question,
[Jprogramming] Wrong agenda? Jose Mario Quintana
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-November/016930.html
Roger provided some background information,
[Jprogramming] Wrong agenda? Roger Hui
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-November/016938.html
I then suggested to update the Dictionary or extend the implementation; he
seemed to be inclined to extend the implementation,
[Jprogramming] Wrong agenda? Roger Hui
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-November/016941.html
but neither the dictionary was changed nor the implementation was extended.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
Ok...
If I adopt this perspective - that a gerund is a list ARs of verbs and
only verbs - I run into some ... ambiguities ... that might be worth
some thought:
[1] In the left tine of a fork, a noun AR is treated as a verb AR
(derived with "_).
[2] When I look at the dictionary page for agenda, it does *not* state
that m must be a gerund for the [email protected] case -- it only states that
requirement on the [email protected] case (where it's trivial to know the result at
parse time).
Anyways ... maybe I need to sleep on this, because I'm still not sure
what I am overlooking.
--
Raul
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:29 PM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
You are right. In m`:0 and m`:3 m must be a gerund, while in m`:6 m can
contain any valid ARs.
Henry Rich
On 9/6/2018 12:15 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
That said, in the mean time, I would imagine that the left argument to
the Evoke Gerund conjunction (`:) must be a gerund, and that context
certainly has allowed trains which included non-verb ARs.
---
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
