Yes that can be a relevant annoyance. A different annoyance is needing to
have an x argument, or using the }~ workaround, and rewording all of the verbs
so that they point to [ instead of ], or tagging each verb in gerund with ~.
On Monday, September 17, 2018, 2:45:51 p.m. EDT, Raul Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
You've lost me with this argument.
I have, on a number of occasions used v0`v1`v2}~ y ... and in every
one of those cases, v0, v1 and v2 only referenced y. So almost
invariably, one or more of those constituent verbs have had to use the
@] construct so that they behave properly (the exceptions mostly were
constant verbs which ignored their reference to y and, thus, also
ignored their reference to x).
So... I am thinking you might want to work through some useful
illustrative examples, here...
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:37 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The proposal would be an improvement over the workaround in that in the
>derived adverb, a monadic rather than ambivalent function could be provided.
>But the workaround solves the problem of forcing a dyadic call even when x
>would not be used at all. An alternative would be to use this version for
>monadic, and simpler (fewer ~) with dyadic (joined with :), but it makes the
>result longer.
>
> On Monday, September 17, 2018, 1:54:30 p.m. EDT, Raul Miller
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> v0 v1 and v2 must all be dyadic.
>
> I thought the point of your proposal was to allow v0 v1 and v2 in
> v0`v1`v2} y to be monadic?
>
> (Re-reading your original post in this thread, I see that I might be
> mistaken. But if you're proposing that they must be dyadic, I don't
> think the proposal would be worth bothering with - you're only saving
> a single character if you go that route, rather than actively
> simplifying expressions which don't benefit from the dyadic context.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:43 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > a workaround solution to making v0`v1`v2} monadic append is to append ~ to
> > }. For example a function that fills in a default value:
> >
> > dfltT =: 1 : '(<@)~(`(m"_))(`[)}~(^:('''' -: m {:: ]))'
> >
> >
> > (0 +:@:{:: ]) 1 dfltT
> >
> > <@(0 +:@:({::) ])~`(1"_)`[}~^:('' -: 1 {:: ])
> > (0 +:@:{:: ]) 1 dfltT 2 ; ''
> >
> > ┌─┬─┐
> >
> > │2│4│
> >
> > └─┴─┘
> >
> > (0 +:@:{:: ]) 1 dfltT 2 ; 3
> >
> > ┌─┬─┐
> >
> > │2│3│
> >
> > └─┴─┘
> > the v0 function can/must be dyadic, and accesses full x and y in the normal
> > locations ([]).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, September 17, 2018, 11:36:17 a.m. EDT, 'Pascal Jasmin' via
> > Programming <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Not that I've seen the implementation code, but the thought is that none of
> > the optimizations would be affected if at a high level
> > v0`v1`v2} is always amend (regardless of valence)
> > v0`v1} is always composite item.
> > My proposal was/is to allow the composite item version to be ambivalent
> > (for definitional simplicity and convenience), but its not what I care
> > about. Its just the first version that has no current use monadically.
> > The pattern where monadic amend is useful is when y is a boxed record
> > structure where data in one field can help update another field. Or
> > simplicity when the update value is a function of the data.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
