> > What should be changed, and how, to make the system you want?
> I would gladly try to describe the system that I would want to have in
the context of train (`:6), agenda (@.), gerunds, and related forms; but,
it is too late for me to do so coherently tonight.
The short answer is: I would like, at least, to change whatever needs to be
changed in the interpreter to produce and display proper linear
representations (LRs) of adverbs which currently have faulty ones, and
change what needs to be changed in the documentation to legitimize the past
(and current?) behavior of tie (`), train (`:6), and agenda (@.) by
removing needless restrictions, or at least preserve the behavior.
Why do I care about this kind of adverbs? One can just write programs, or
one can write programs to write programs, prefer the latter; in addition, I
prefer tacit programming which is the natural functional programming in J,
quoting a quote from NuVoc 'as the expert J programmer Randy MacDonald has
said, "If you're not programming functionally, you're programming
dysfunctionally".'
P.S. I will try to provide an answer with details during the weekend.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 11:43 PM Jose Mario Quintana <
jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > What I read here is complaining. What I am asking for is a suggestion
> > for action.
>
> What I showed is that replacing the AR of a noun does not always make
sense. Thus, do not replace the AR or replace it, if you want, only when
the context is suitable; that is your decision. Mind you, I cannot foresee
all the repercussions of what I am suggesting; I do not know for sure if
that alone would cure all the issues related to the LR of certain adverbs
or if it would cause unintended consequences. Yet, it seems a good start
to me.
>
> > What should be changed, and how, to make the system you want?
> I would gladly try to describe the system that I would want to have in
the context of train (`:6), agenda (@.), gerunds, and related forms; but,
it is too late for me to do so coherently tonight.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 9:55 PM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What I read here is complaining. What I am asking for is a suggestion
> > for action. What should be changed, and how, to make the system you
want?
> >
> > Henry Rich
> >
> > On 3/2/2020 9:51 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
> > > The issue, to me, is not reflected in your example (wherein that
context
> > > makes sense to replace the AR). Consider instead the following
adverb,
> > >
> > > a2=. (`(<(":0);_)) (`:6)
> > >
> > > a2
> > > (`_)(`:6)
> > >
> > > (5!:5)<'a2'
> > > (`_)(`:6)
> > >
> > > The issue, in this context, is that,
> > >
> > > b2=. (`_)(`:6) NB. defined using the LR of a2
> > >
> > > (5!:1)<'b2'
> > > ┌──────────────────────────────────┐
> > > │┌─┬──────────────────────────────┐│
> > > ││4│┌─────────────┬──────────────┐││
> > > ││ ││┌─┬─────────┐│┌─┬──────────┐│││
> > > ││ │││4│┌─┬─────┐│││4│┌──┬─────┐││││
> > > ││ │││ ││`│┌─┬─┐││││ ││`:│┌─┬─┐│││││
> > > ││ │││ ││ ││0│_│││││ ││ ││0│6││││││
> > > ││ │││ ││ │└─┴─┘││││ ││ │└─┴─┘│││││
> > > ││ │││ │└─┴─────┘│││ │└──┴─────┘││││
> > > ││ ││└─┴─────────┘│└─┴──────────┘│││
> > > ││ │└─────────────┴──────────────┘││
> > > │└─┴──────────────────────────────┘│
> > > └──────────────────────────────────┘
> > >
> > > is not the same adverb as a2
> > >
> > > (5!:1)<'a2'
> > > ┌────────────────────────────────────────┐
> > > │┌─┬────────────────────────────────────┐│
> > > ││4│┌───────────────────┬──────────────┐││
> > > ││ ││┌─┬───────────────┐│┌─┬──────────┐│││
> > > ││ │││4│┌─┬───────────┐│││4│┌──┬─────┐││││
> > > ││ │││ ││`│┌─┬───────┐││││ ││`:│┌─┬─┐│││││
> > > ││ │││ ││ ││0│┌─────┐│││││ ││ ││0│6││││││
> > > ││ │││ ││ ││ ││┌─┬─┐││││││ ││ │└─┴─┘│││││
> > > ││ │││ ││ ││ │││0│_│││││││ │└──┴─────┘││││
> > > ││ │││ ││ ││ ││└─┴─┘│││││└─┴──────────┘│││
> > > ││ │││ ││ ││ │└─────┘││││ │││
> > > ││ │││ ││ │└─┴───────┘│││ │││
> > > ││ │││ │└─┴───────────┘││ │││
> > > ││ ││└─┴───────────────┘│ │││
> > > ││ │└───────────────────┴──────────────┘││
> > > │└─┴────────────────────────────────────┘│
> > > └────────────────────────────────────────┘
> > >
> > > In other words, the LR of a2 is faulty.
> > >
> > >
> > >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
