Like I said, I've never encountered that in my work. Theoretically, of course, anything is possible.
In practice, though, that turns out to not be the case. Which gets back to illustrative examples being useful. Thanks, -- Raul On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 7:12 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
