Yes, it does. It is executed on parser line 3. It produces an
anonymous verb that will amend an array.
But you asked to DISPLAY the anonymous verb. How do you display the
verb that will amend an array? The best the JE can do is to display the
J code that describes that effect.
The display of a verb is a description of the verb, not the verb itself.
Henry Rich
On 12/7/2018 6:55 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
