Thank you for the confirmation. So in these two cases, word splitting happens exactly the same if we use em() instead, correct? Is there a particular reason to *not* use em() though? As far as I can tell, the main difference would be in the traces. I would really like to know if ev() was chosen here with some specific intention.
Wildly speculating, I imagine that the state table's author might have chosen ev() because it leaves certain useful data in the trace, which is envisioned as being passed on to a parser stage, or something similar. I would be really interested in hearing the nitty gritty details of this kind of context. On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 11:31:35AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 9:03 AM ethiejiesa via Programming > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I wish to ask something very specific. Is there a particular > > technical reason for ev()ing (output code 4) from the 6 (num) state > > when encountering a Q (quote) or X (other) character? Unless I am > > misunderstanding, there is no way for a subsequent ev() to be emitted > > at all, much less one when r = 6. > > ev ends the number and moves to a new state. > > So the quote or other character begins a new token. > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
