I have a couple comments.
Well.. ok, there are a variety of alternate phrasings of these
concepts. But those tie back to the exposition, so I'm going to be
ignoring them here.
That said:
1) For this audience (j newcomers) I would be strongly tempted to use
dyad define instead of 4 : 0. (Specifically, the names 'adverb',
'conjunction', 'verb' or 'monad', and 'dyad' instead of the numbers 1,
2, 3 and/or 4 because I think the words show intent better. Also, I
would be tempted to use the words 'define' and 'def' instead of their
definitions.)
2) I would use =: for all stand-alone definitions. This is because =.
definitions in a script vanish when you attempt to reference them
outside of the script, and when teaching novices that's a likely
stumbling block, and one that's difficult to ask about. ("Why doesn't
it work?") But I would also use =. consistently inside defined blocks
(unless I specifically was debugging) -- if I wanted to define a word
which was useful outside that block, I'd move the definition out of
the block and switch it back to a =: definition. Your word 'newline'
might be an example of what I'd move outside the block.
Then again, copy and paste inclinations suggest that maybe I should
use =: consistently everywhere? .. I'm not sure...
Anyways, I think your basic approach here is solid. Specifically,
you're relying on domain knowledge outside the language, and choosing
J phrasing which roughly fit that approach.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 11:50 PM Arnab Chakraborty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear Henry,
>
> Ironically, I did read that page while trying to solve the mystery. But I
> had still missed the point!
>
> Anyway, I have created a "baby tutorial" by jotting down the steps I
> took to produce an adverb for creating 3D obj files.
> The problem is eminently suited for the J language, and illustrates the
> advantage of J over other languages without relying too heavily on cryptic
> J magic :-)
>
> Here is the tutorial link:
> https://www.isical.ac.in/~arnabc/j/jtut5.html
>
> I shall be delighted if you (and others) take a look at this.
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Arnab
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:43 AM David Lambert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Oh my, I don't recall having read note 11. Thanks.
> >
> > Note 12-> this is a better definition of recursive factorial than the
> > stack error producing code:
> >
> > v =: (* v@:<:) ` 1: @. (<&2) NB. recursive factorial
> >
> > which I presume still illustrates the point.
> >
> > Thank you, Dave
> >
> >
> > On 8/25/19 8:00 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 12:24:18 -0400
> > > From: Henry Rich<[email protected]>
> > > To:[email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Creating adverb
> > > Message-ID:<[email protected]>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> > >
> > > Full detail athttps://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/com
> > >
> > > for this, Details Note 11.
> > >
> > > Henry Rich
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
