the bug is the display of
((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar))(`:6)
((3`)(`5))(`:6)
((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar))
(3`)(`5)
where,
ar =: 1 : '5!:1 <''u'''
The displayed code result is not a valid executable equivalence to the
expression that created it. This appears to be a display only bug, as the code
works internally.
((3 ar)`) NB. this should be (<(,'0');3)`
<(,'0');3`
On Thursday, February 27, 2020, 09:20:51 p.m. EST, Henry Rich
<henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
I also don't understand what it is alleged is an error.
Henry Rich
On 2/27/2020 9:06 PM, Julian Fondren wrote:
> On 2020-02-27 19:38, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
>> gerunds are lists of atomic representations? (yes,ok, that is a noun)
>>
>> A more basic description of the problem.
>
> What is the problem though? Is 'modifiers' still a valid subject
> for this thread? Even reading your last message, or the thread
> from the beginning, I really don't know what you're saying here.
>
>> Both of these expressions are illegal
>> 3`+
>> 3`+`5
>>
> ...
>>
>> These 2 expressions "parse" due to the "lazy"/spartan
>> definition/behaviour of `
>>
>> +`a:
>>
> ...
>> a:`+
>>
>
> I don't believe this is because a: is a magical noun, but
> because it's boxed.
>
> (<3)`+`(<5)
> ┌─┬─┬─┐
> │3│+│5│
> └─┴─┴─┘
>
> consider:
>
> +`a.`-
> |domain error
> | + `a.`-
> +`(<a.)`-@.0 ] 1
> 1
> +`(<a.)`-@.2 ] 1
> _1
> +`(<a.)`-@.1 ] 1
> |domain error
> | +`(<a.)`- @.1]1
> datatype > 1 { +`(<a.)`-
> literal
> # > 1 { +`(<a.)`-
> 256
> ((<'+');(<'-'))@.1 ] 1
> _1
> ((<'+');(<'-'))@.0 ] 1
> 1
>
>>
>> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
