Yes... in other words, the tacit expression you want can be hinted at this way:
$(cntrl filters&(link"2) tesl ])"3 2 image
3 2 2 3 2 2
$filters (cntrl [&(link"2) tesl ])"3 2 image
3 2 2 4
But of course neither work right. The first fails because filters is
the wrong value. The second fails because the grammar is wrong.
To help see that filters is the wrong value for your tacit expression,
you can replace the body of your explicit expression:
filters(4 : 'echo x;y')"3 2 image
To help see that the grammar is wrong in the second expression, you
can replace the non-noun names with their values:
$filters (cntrl [&(;"2);._3 ])"3 2 image
That said, it occurs to me that this gets close:
$filters 2 1 0 3&|:@(;"2/ cntrl&(];._3))"3 2 image
3 2 2 2 2
That's still not right, though:
want=: filters(4 : 'cntrl x&(link"2) tesl y')"3 2 image
{:want=filters 2 1 0 3&|:@(;"2/ cntrl&(];._3))"3 2 image
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 1
I hope this helps in some fashion...
--
Raul
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:50 PM Brian Schott <schott.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Raul,
>
> Regarding your comment about needing paren's, I don't think I agree, unless
> you are thinking because the implicit part is already a verb without
> parens. Does the following experiment verify that no paren's are required.
> But perhaps you mean a fork or hook needs to be used to give the verb the
> extra information contained in the explicit version?
>
> v =. filters&(link"2) tesl"3 2
> 'v' nl 3
> ┌─┐
> │v│
> └─┘
> $cntrl v image
> 3 2 2 3 2 2
>
> Regarding your following observation, I don't understand your meaning. Why
> do mention the explicit verb? Are you saying there is an inherent
> difference between the powers of implicit and 4 : 'xxx' verbs that I don't
> understand? That is, are you saying that explicit verbs can split rank that
> implicit verbs cannot? You're correct that I have been able to make the
> implicit verb to work well with rank 3 "filter" value. So, the explicit
> form makes "filter" the left-hand (u) value of the adverb "tesl", where the
> implicit form can ONLY make "cntrl" the left-hand of the whole verb (which
> I named "v" in my example above). So, maybe that is the difference between
> the explicit and the implicit: the x in the explicit can force the "cntrl"
> to be the adverb's argument, not the verb's argument?
>
> "But another issue is that the left argument to your explicit verb is rank 4
> and you want to split it at rank 3 with a different x& binding for each of
> these items."
>
> What do you think?
> Thanks, to all,
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 7:48 PM Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One issue here is that you "3 2 is missing a parentheses in your tacit
> > sentence. (Throw in a ] placeholder to capture your y argument.)
> >
> > But another issue is that the left argument to your explicit verb is rank 4
> > and you want to split it at rank 3 with a different x& binding for each of
> > these items.
> >
> > Maybe try rephrasing this using explicit loops to illustrate how you would
> > need to build a tacit version? (Personally, I wouldn't bother--it would
> > work, but you'd introduce so much complexity that I think your efforts
> > might be better spent elsewhere...)
> >
> > --
> > Raul
> >
> > --
> (B=)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
