Right, but this form is not mentioned in, F. Trains file:///G:/program%20files/j/addons/docs/help/dictionary/dictf.htm
Is it? (My apologies, I have not seen NuVoc in detail.) I should mention that in that my Y combinator was, by design, producing anonymous recursive verbs as (n a) trains. On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:22 PM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > (Noun Adverb) is certainly allowed, as in m} . > > Henry Rich > > On 12/7/2018 6:20 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > > 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 <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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
