Bob,
I am having trouble with the "head" video, because it uses both the "take"
and the "from" verbs without giving their usage in depth. I see why all 3
are needed because they are slightly different. For simple cases with
items, 0&{ and {. are identical; but for cases where there are no items
(like i. 0 and i. 0 2 ) 0&{ fails and 1&{. is required first to construct
an item before 0&{ is executed. I cannot think of a better way to deal with
this issue than the way you have, but maybe distinguishing between
arguments with and without items separately might work.
On another note, I wish you could find an alternative to the
right-curly-brace you use in some cases because it can be confused with
amend.
I don't know whether a blue border for an atom is better than a blue
background. And this gets caught up in my mentioning itemless arguments,
because I guess an atom is itemless and yet 0&{ works for atoms. Maybe the
distinction is between arguments non-empty and empty arguments like '',
i.0, i. 0 2.
It's beginning to seem as if I dancing on the head of a pin, to quote Raul.
Your videos are great.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:34 PM 'robert therriault' via Programming <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey Brian,
>
> Based on your thoughts on the backgrounds I redid the video for Head so
> that the representation of the atom becomes a solid blue background instead
> of ring when it is made into a one item list.
>
> Hopefully this consistency will help the understanding as we move forward.
>
> The new video is posted here. https://youtu.be/FV9G5zeRnPg
>
> Cheers, bob
>
> > On Jun 2, 2019, at 8:45 AM, 'robert therriault' via Programming <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Brian, that is great feedback.
> >
> > It was the true intent and you are right that I should mention it.
> >
> > Also, the reason that the atom example has only a blue border is that
> the shape of an atom is empty, whereas the solid blue indicate the shape of
> the items. The blue border differentiates it from the list of length 1
> which would be a solid blue background. The challenge that I face is that I
> don't want to get too far into the weeds when I am explaining something
> like Behead. That was one of the reasons that I made up an Items video, as
> it explains the concepts that are foundational to the explanation of verbs
> that operate on items.
> >
> > Your third point is actually why I included the empty examples. Often
> they are mentioned only in passing, when I think that the difference
> between items that are empty and no items is a foundational concept. If
> your confusion is a result of not being clear on the distinction, then I am
> okay with that if it leads to understanding. If the presentation confuses
> the issue further, then I have work to do. I am going to take another look
> at that at those empty examples. I did think about the further explanation
> of i. 0 2 and i. 2 0, but again that would bring a whole other verb into
> the discussion and I thought it better to just have s20 and s02 be what
> they are because I don't think for these purposes that it matters how they
> came to be that way.
> >
> > Just my thoughts. Any responses/disagreements would be welcome, as that
> is how these videos will improve.
> >
> > The nice thing about making these videos into labs is that I can address
> some of this in the examples and the text surrounding the video. I hope to
> have the Behead lab up later today and I will certainly think about your
> points as I develop it. Of course, if the confusion is deep enough then the
> solution is to redo the video!
> >
> > Cheers, bob
> >
> >
> >
>
--
(B=) <-----my sig
Brian Schott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
