Thanks for the explanation. The questions I asked were not rhetorical; I had a view but I was not certain and I am trying to understand what happens.
If I understand correctly then, in contrast, - * ^ does not produce a verb but it remains a train. > The display of a verb is a description of the verb, not the verb itself. I know, but without looking at the source the best I can do is to look at the atomic representations and see. Now, I know I should look for the codes for trains to find out (I suppose). On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:01 PM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
