gerunds are lists of atomic representations? (yes,ok, that is a noun)
A more basic description of the problem. Both of these expressions are illegal
3`+
3`+`5
when 2 nouns are joined with "`", ` acts as the verb ",".
I guess the usefulness of that behaviour is that a "conjunction train of `"
builds up a noun from left to right (actually not sure direction), and there is
parsing efficiency gained by not checking if the built up noun is a valid
gerund or not. Parsing efficiency may not be important though.
These 2 expressions "parse" due to the "lazy"/spartan definition/behaviour of `
+`a:
┌─┬┐
│+││
└─┴┘
a:`+
┌┬─┐
││+│
└┴─┘
I have well tested code that provides "return list of atomic representations"
behaviour from tie if that is deemed a worthwhile change.
But, my other point was that "visual sugar" that is invalid code can have
inconveniences.
On Thursday, February 27, 2020, 03:14:58 p.m. EST, Raul Miller
<rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
gerund are nouns.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 12:51 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
<programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Seems I found a bug, though the following approach still works, and has the
> best performance
>
> ar =: 1 : '5!:1 <''u'''
>
> the bug is:
>
> ((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar)) (`:6)
>
> ((3`)(`5))(`:6) NB. not valid gerunds, though magically the following still
> works
>
> + ((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar)) (`:6)
> 8
>
> + A=: (((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar)) (`:6)) NB. separate lines still work despite
> "invalid return"
>
> 8
>
> though the following fails,
>
> + ((3`)(`5))(`:6)
>
> |domain error
>
> representation is supposed to be,
>
> + ((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar))
>
> ┌─────┬─┬─────┐
>
> │┌─┬─┐│+│┌─┬─┐│
>
> ││0│3││ ││0│5││
>
> │└─┴─┘│ │└─┴─┘│
>
> └─────┴─┴─────┘
>
>
> An incompatible change that would seem very welcome to me, would be that
>
> noun ` noun
>
> instead of creating a list from the 2 nouns (pair) if they are magically
> compatible, would create a pair of atomic representations of each noun.
>
> Because the above code works, it appears as though just "visual sugar" is
> provided for display. The proposed incompatible change would make the visual
> sugar valid code, which is consistent (other than this) within J.
>
> On Thursday, February 27, 2020, 11:33:59 a.m. EST, Raul Miller
> <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Or, more robust:
>
> C=:2 :0
> mRep=. 5!:5<'m'
> mVn=. m V n
> mVnRep=. 5!:5<'mVn'
> 1 :('(',mRep,') u~ ',mVnRep)
> )
>
> Example use:
>
> V=:+
> ,. 10 C (i.2 3)
> 10 11 12 10
> 13 14 15 10
>
> (The issue here is that 5!:5 is better than ": when serializing nouns
> for use in sentences.)
>
> Perhaps even better, though, would be to define a verb to serialize
> nouns and use that in place of ":
>
> lrep=:3 :0
> '(',(5!:5<'y'),')'
> )
>
> C=:2 :0
> 1 :((lrep m),'u~',lrep m V n)
> )
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 6:48 AM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
> <programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
> >
> > C =: 2 : 0
> > 1 : ((": m) , ' u~ ' , ": m V n)
> > )
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, February 27, 2020, 03:04:57 a.m. EST, Hauke Rehr
> > <hauke.r...@uni-jena.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What I want is rather something (C here) callable like
> > noun1 C noun2
> > resulting in the adverb
> > noun1 u~ <result of noun1 V noun2>
> >
> > What you say I knew except if the evaluation
> > rules changed in j9 and this is new bahaviour.
> >
> > That said, I got rid of my nested 1 :/2 :
> > construct (I didn’t mention that yet)
> > and tried replacing m and n by x and y
> > but to no avail.
> >
> > Am 27.02.20 um 01:37 schrieb 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming:
> > > u or m will be the argument to A. x and y arguments to resulting verb.
> > >
> > > it sounds as though you may be trying to do
> > >
> > > A =: 1 : 'x u~ x V y' NB. a valid dyadic adverb in j9
> > >
> > > and this would be equivalent to
> > >
> > > ([ u~ V)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, 06:20:45 p.m. EST, Hauke Rehr
> > > <hauke.r...@uni-jena.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello again,
> > >
> > > I’m still confused about modifiers.
> > > Please tell me where to find more information
> > > that might aid in understanding how this works:
> > >
> > > I have an adverb A and a verb V but sometimes
> > > x and y for the derived verb for A are known
> > > prior to the verb, so I want to write a modifier
> > > something like this:
> > >
> > > m (u A)~ m V n
> > >
> > > I get a domain error which afaik is due to both
> > > m and u being bound to the left noun.
> > > So how would one go about this and where to find
> > > further information on constructions like this?
> > >
> >
> > --
> > ----------------------
> > mail written using NEO
> > neo-layout.org
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
