I was not stating that all boxed representation (BR) can, or should be, interpreted using the train (`:6) and agenda (@.). I mentioned them just because when I was learning, many years ago, to construct these (almost surely illegal) forms supported by the interpreter, the related BRs were enlightening. That is all.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:37 AM Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
