As far as I can see the verb, (<(<,':'),<(<(,'0');1),<(,'0');1 0$'u') (1 : 'u u`:6`:6 y')
is, or resembles, a train of the form (noun adverb) but this kind of train is not documented. Is it? (The verbs produced by my version of the Y combinator were On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 11:12 AM Henry Rich <[email protected]> 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
