The name x. (and y.) could refer to a noun or a verb just as x (and y) can,
incrby=. 1 : 'x i.' v=. + *: v incrby 6 6 7 10 15 22 31 Tacit adverbial programming has become more difficult over time (and tacit conjunctional programming has been impossible for a while); however, this adverb can be made tacit easily, incrby=. (`i.) (`:6) incrby (`i.)(`:6) v incrby v i. v incrby 6 6 7 10 15 22 31 The complication (&>) seems unnecessary, at least for the case at hand. At any rate, it is not very difficult to make a version of the explicit adverb, incrby=:1 :'(u (&>) i.) y' tacit, incrby=. (`((<;:'&>')`i.)) (`:6) v incrby v&> i. v incrby 6 6 7 10 15 22 31 I hope it helps. PS. Thanks for sharing the books.google.ca trick On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 2:41 PM 'robert therriault' via Programming < [email protected]> wrote: > Later on in the book (via magic of search of books.google.ca) it looks > like he has also defined > > incrby =. 2 : 'x. ((&>) i.) y.' on page 267 > > which would be a conjunction but without positions for u or v in the > expression > > Not sure what is going on here, but I can replicate the effect that he was > going for by defining it as an adverb. > > incrby=. 1 : 'u i.' > v=. + *: > v incrby 6 > 6 7 10 15 22 31 > > Cheers, bob > > > On May 31, 2019, at 11:05 AM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > can you tell us what the function is expected to do? > > &> is an unboxing adverb > > (a v) is a syntax error. But perhaps an early version of J, it wasn't. > > > > > > On Friday, May 31, 2019, 2:00:00 p.m. EDT, Ulrich Vollert < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I am reading „J: The natural language for analytic computing“ and on > page 47 the author defines an adverb > > > > incrby =: (&>) i. > > > > which leads to a syntax error if I try to define it. > > > > Any hint what is going on? > > > > Regards, > > Ulrich > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
