Thank you Pepe, Another option that would seem more useful/general
(a v v2 v3) captures u into the full argument u`v`v2`v3 a (a n) would if n not gerund, u`(n ar) a, and if n is a gerund u`n a (a n v2 v3 v4) would ar n if not gerund, and then produce u`n`v2`v3`v4 a This would allow for easy strand notation, with any termination character. a (norv) can return (a gerund) to continue parsing Any train combo/rearrangement can be done with f g h ==> f ((@.0 1 2) g h) (a1 v) a2 is usefully separated into a1 as the parsing guard/validator with initial parameters, and a2 as the final processing function. This allows for any of the original and option 2 alternatives with much more flexibility. I was asking for custom parser utilities, and not for J to change its parsing. On Wednesday, May 6, 2020, 05:02:09 p.m. EDT, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: A0 V1 adv (x A0) V1 http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2016-March/044744.html On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 4:42 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming < [email protected]> wrote: > I cannot find what (a v) did back then. > > > > Early J had a complete language of bidents/tridents. It was beautiful > and powerful. Not five people understood it. It was removed in J5, > never to return. > > Henry Rich > > On 5/6/2020 3:00 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote: > > what should (a v) do? (if it were valid) > > > > then what would (a v v) or (a v v v) do? > > > > option 1: change v into an adverb (letting it return functions or > return an lr that will be evaled to any form of speech), and then run v 'a' > > > > option 2: Compose v on (u a). (a v) remains an adverb. > > > > btw, there is a missing composition operator in J. I'd suggest O. (on) > as a conjunction where O. allows for both dyadic u and v. > > > > O. =: (u@:v) : ([ u v) > > > > so option 2 above would be v O. (u a) . This doesn't seem useful > because you could just write the adverb a ( v O.) for the same result. A > generalization of option 2 is there is some implied conjunction partially > bound to v that gets executed in (a v) > > > > Where option 2 gets interesting is in the expression > > > > v1 (a1 v2) (a2 v3) > > > > There is no reason to write such an expression if the intent were for v1 > to be an argument to the adverb (a1 v2) if there is an implied conjunction > meaning. Instead the above example would be a multi adverb where > parameters are "templated in" > > > > u1 u2 (v1 (a1 v2) (a2 v3)) ==> v1 v2 O.(u1 a1) v3 O.(u2 a2 ) > > > > > > Any other options/proposals? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
