Henry reported (I think/thought) fixing this display (lr) bug within the j9 
cycle.

Though that lr bug caused the problems with f. that we both have noted in the 
past.

There are 2 separate display bugs with "partial gerunds" (bound adverb with `)

((<(,'0');3)`)  NB. not equivalent to displayed result

<(,'0');3`

Any other adverb "trained" with partial gerund creates a more obvious distortion

 /((<(,'0');3)`)

/(3`)

though it still works (internally it is not messed up as display)

+(/((<(,'0');3)`))

┌─────┬───────┐

│┌─┬─┐│┌─┬───┐│

││0│3│││/│┌─┐││

│└─┴─┘││ ││+│││

│ ││ │└─┘││

│ │└─┴───┘│

└─────┴───────┘


On Thursday, February 27, 2020, 10:23:28 p.m. EST, Jose Mario Quintana 
<jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote: 





> Seems I found a bug

The question is:

Is the long-standing ability of (`:6), and @.,  to handle arrays of atomic
representations (and similar), a bug or a feature?

Dan mentioned a decade ago,

  No subject [!]
  http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2009-April/033220.html

(Unfortunately, a link therein pointing to Dan's svn project with "Lots of
scripts I've written or stolen" seems to be broken.)

I have mentioned before a verb I wrote to produce, so to speak, an atomic
representation of a sentence (as); for example,

  as'3 + 5'
┌───────┬─┬───────┐
│┌─────┐│+│┌─────┐│
││┌─┬─┐││ ││┌─┬─┐││
│││0│3│││ │││0│5│││
││└─┴─┘││ ││└─┴─┘││
│└─────┘│ │└─────┘│
└───────┴─┴───────┘
is similar to,

  (+ ((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar)))
┌─────┬─┬─────┐
│┌─┬─┐│+│┌─┬─┐│
││0│3││ ││0│5││
│└─┴─┘│ │└─┴─┘│
└─────┴─┴─────┘

since

  (as'3 + 5') (`:6)
8

One can produce more complicated (as)'s; for instance,
  as'(3 + 5) * 2'
┌───────────────────┬─┬───────┐
│┌───────┬─┬───────┐│*│┌─────┐│
││┌─────┐│+│┌─────┐││ ││┌─┬─┐││
│││┌─┬─┐││ ││┌─┬─┐│││ │││0│2│││
││││0│3│││ │││0│5││││ ││└─┴─┘││
│││└─┴─┘││ ││└─┴─┘│││ │└─────┘│
││└─────┘│ │└─────┘││ │      │
│└───────┴─┴───────┘│ │      │
└───────────────────┴─┴───────┘

  (as'(3 + 5) * 2') (`:6)
16

or,
  as'("1)(@:(>@:{))'
┌───────────┬─────────────┐
│┌─┬───────┐│┌──┬────────┐│
││"│┌─────┐│││@:│┌─┬──┬─┐││
││ ││┌─┬─┐││││  ││>│@:│{│││
││ │││0│1│││││  │└─┴──┴─┘││
││ ││└─┴─┘│││└──┴────────┘│
││ │└─────┘││            │
│└─┴───────┘│            │
└───────────┴─────────────┘

  (as'("1)(@:(>@:{))') (`:6)
("1)(@:(>@:{))
┌─────┬─────────────┐
│┌─┬─┐│┌──┬────────┐│
││"│1│││@:│┌─┬──┬─┐││
│└─┴─┘││  ││>│@:│{│││
│    ││  │└─┴──┴─┘││
│    │└──┴────────┘│
└─────┴─────────────┘

If it is regarded as a bug rather than a feature, then adverbial tacit
programming (orthodox or otherwise) would be severely limited (then again,
that seems to be the trend).

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

Reply via email to