I think one issue is that interpreting 5!:2 results as trains can result in ambiguities.
ar=:1 :'5!:1<''u''' br=:1 :'5!:2<''u''' F=: ,&(3 ar) F ,&(<(,'0');3) F f. br`:6 ,&3 Or, generally speaking, nouns in 5!:2 results are not intended for use in trains. G=: +&3 G f. br`:6 |domain error I hope this helps, -- Raul On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:20 AM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Change? We have been discussing whether certain forms are valid. The > spec, Ye Dic, is silent and we are filling it in. > > Jsoftware's policy has been to leave the JE as it is in some cases where > it accepts forms that are not valid according to the language > definition. This is from indolence more than benevolence, and a > programmer would be unwise to rely on its continuance. If I can save > one mispredicted branch by disallowing an invalid form, I will. > > Here Pepe has noted some forms that the interpreter accepts. I think > they are not legal. Use them at your peril. > > FWIW, I would not remove support for these forms without consulting the > /ulama/. They are in a gray area, unlike, say, verbs that return > non-noun results, which I feel no commitment for. > > Henry Rich > > > > On 3/12/2020 12:00 AM, Devon McCormick wrote: > > 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 > >> > > > > > -- > 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
