> Of course the fact that m@.n allows certain forms does not imply that > m@.v would support similar forms.
Of course. > I don't see anything to object to here. Great! This means tacit adverbs functioning as parameterized macros are, or might be eventually, legitimized. > There are gerunds and adverbs, > producing trains that evaluate properly. Right, the trains evaluate properly; even though the list (;:'@:-"') includes ARs of conjunctions (it is not my intention at all to argue with a /mufti/ of J, I am just accentuating). > By The Wise I mean the /ulama/ of J (neminem nominabo, genus hominum > significasse contentus) You know who you are. Train (`:6) can also evaluate properly forms associated with the corresponding agenda (m@.n) evaluation, mutatis mutandis; exempli gratia, ((<'"') ,~ (<;:'u@:v-v@:u')) ┌─────────────────┬─┐ │┌─┬──┬─┬─┬─┬──┬─┐│"│ ││u│@:│v│-│v│@:│u││ │ │└─┴──┴─┴─┴─┴──┴─┘│ │ └─────────────────┴─┘ ((<'"') ,~ (<;:'u@:v-v@:u')) (`:6) (u@:v - v@:u)" Do the /ulama/ of J (et alli) disapprove? By the way, some boxed representations belong to this class of forms, t=. (u@:v - v@:u)" (5!:2<'t') ┌─────────────────────┬─┐ │┌────────┬─┬────────┐│"│ ││┌─┬──┬─┐│-│┌─┬──┬─┐││ │ │││u│@:│v││ ││v│@:│u│││ │ ││└─┴──┴─┘│ │└─┴──┴─┘││ │ │└────────┴─┴────────┘│ │ └─────────────────────┴─┘ (5!:2<'t') (`:6) (u@:v - v@:u)" but not all of them, t=. "1 (5!:2<'t') ┌─┬─┐ │"│1│ └─┴─┘ (5!:2<'t') (`:6) |domain error | (5!:2<'t') (`:6) The issue here is the missing (in the evaluation sense) AR of 1, (<,'"'),<<(,'0');1 ┌─┬───────┐ │"│┌─────┐│ │ ││┌─┬─┐││ │ │││0│1│││ │ ││└─┴─┘││ │ │└─────┘│ └─┴───────┘ ((<,'"'),<<(,'0');1) (`:6) "1 On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:49 PM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't see anything to object to here. There are gerunds and adverbs, > producing trains that evaluate properly. > > > By The Wise I mean the /ulama/ of J (neminem nominabo, genus hominum > significasse contentus) You know who you are. > > Henry Rich > > On 3/10/2020 11:34 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > >> I don't think it's illegal. The spec (Ye Dic, here) is incomplete. It > > That is good to know. > > > >> I don't see anything bad coming from executing a train containing > >> non-verbs; so I would vote to expand the spec to include all trains. > > I do not see anything bag coming either, on the contrary. > > > >> There would need to be discussion among The Wise before any such change. > > May I offer some food for thought to The Wise? > > > > I would expect that whatever is decided regarding the legality in J about > > the train's (`:6) arguments would, or should, affect its capable relative, > > agenda (@.), specifically the m@.n form; for instance, do The Wise, or you, > > in particular, think that the following sentences, supported by j901, are > > legal or illegal in J? > > > > a=. (`(;:'@:-"'))(@.(4 ;~ (<0 2 1 3 1 2 0))) > > > > u`v a > > (u@:v - v@:u)" > > > > _1 *:`(+/) a i. 2 3 4 > > 64 118 184 262 > > 1504 1702 1912 2134 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:09 AM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't think it's illegal. The spec (Ye Dic, here) is incomplete. It > >> says what will be done if there is a verb train but is silent about > >> other trains. > >> > >> What the implementation does is accept any train and evaluate it. > >> Thinking about it I don't see anything else you could do with a train; & > >> I don't see anything bad coming from executing a train containing > >> non-verbs; so I would vote to expand the spec to include all trains. > >> > >> There would need to be discussion among The Wise before any such change. > >> > >> Henry Rich > >> > >> On 3/9/2020 11:36 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > >>> Henry wrote: > >>> > >>>> Ye Dic mentions only verb trains under `: . > >>> Therefore, the sentence ((<,'"') ` (an 1) (`:6)) is illegal in J > > because "1 > >>> is not a train of verbs (even if it is supported by j). Correct? (This > > is > >>> not a rhetorical question.) > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > >> https://www.avg.com > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > -- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
