Would this change be likely to break existing code?

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:58 PM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would object to
>
>   ((<'"') ,~ (<;:'u@:v-v@:u')) (`:6)
>
> because the long sequence of ARs is not a valid AR.  This seems like an
> interpreter artifact.
>
> The result of 5!:2 is not germane here, as it is not an AR.  Your
> examples using it also seem to be interpreter artifacts to me.
>
> Henry Rich
>
> On 3/11/2020 8:22 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
> >> 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
>
>
> --
> 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
>


-- 

Devon McCormick, CFA

Quantitative Consultant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to