The F. Trains begins, "An isolated sequence, such as (+ */) , which the “normal” parsing rules do not resolve" and the form,
5} 5} does not resolve. Does it? On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:39 PM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > My reading is that (N A) is not a train because it is executed when it > is encountered and produces a single word as its value. (A A) or (N C) > are not fully executed until something else comes along. > > I find wrangling over what the Dictionary means unproductive. > > Henry Rich > > On 12/7/2018 6:30 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > > 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
