Sure - it's the definition of the adverb that makes this a bug (or not a bug).
It's the result of the adverb that's significant, and if the definition is unknown we do not know whether or not that result is an adverb. On the other hand, conjunctions without a right (v) argument can be ignored in this context, because it does not matter, yet, what their definition is. But we aren't going to be analyzing the adverb definitions (nor the conjunction definitions, in contexts where they have a v argument). So, to be safe, we have to treat all expressions with unknown result types as if they could trigger this issue, and we have to treat all parenthesized multi-word expressions which contain an unknown adverb or conjunction definition as if we don't know whether the expression generates an adverb or not. Thanks, -- Raul On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 11:12 AM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It turns out, though, that the bug exists only for certain adverbs on > the right. So there are some details involved. > > Henry Rich > > On 12/7/2018 11:09 AM, Raul Miller wrote: > > That can't be right - in that case the parenthesis are redundant. > > > > It's only when non-redundant parentheses are not reproduced that we > > have a bug in linear representation. > > > > That said, if I am understanding this thread, the top-level > > parenthesis around any sub-expression to the left of an unknown adverb > > or conjunction (or to the left of any parenthesized expression which > > contains an unknown adverb or conjunction) when building a linear > > representation must be considered non-redundant because you don't know > > what grammar the expression will be used in. > > > > This, in turn, suggests that those parenthesis are not the > > responsibility of the code representing the sub-expression itself > > (because they are not redundant there), but in the code which > > assembles that representation into the larger expression. > > > > I haven't looked at the implementation though - so it's possible that > > actually implementing this concept would require a major restructuring > > or rewrite of some sort. > > > > 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
