As a career-beginner, most of the time I wouldn't notice. But I take it this proposal would apply to verbs created from explicitly defined modifiers too, not just primitives like (+)?
Is the (de)activation of special code the *only* side-effect? Can you think of any circumstance in which it alters the number of times the (explicit) code of (u myAdverb) gets called? I can't. But I can't get my head around the case for (u myConjunction v) where u is non-trivial, i.e. not 0 or infinity. Suppose u and v are relatively prime. Not that this would matter for a mathematically well-behaved modifier, i.e. one that doesn't change its internal state at each call, or use an expensive or tricky resource, or display its operands, or keep a count of the times it's called. But I suspect some of the Foreigns fall into that category. Now I've never met a case in practice where this would matter much… except for the addon: 'debug/tte' (tacit-to-explicit) -where just about every murky situation can arise. And it's of potential concern to beginners, not just the most cognizant of cognoscenti. At least it should be of concern to a beginner that debug/tte works, and can be relied on. Some of its modifiers take a good hard look at their operands to make decisions about how they're going to behave. Notably (tteT_tte_) .The proposal might break the utility if it changes the operand it sees. Could you please test your prototype against tte to check it doesn't break? debug/tte contains some handy samples, so you don't need to go constructing them. See TEST_tte_ . I'm ransacking my old brain here for 10-year-old knowledge. Abject apologies if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. Ian Clark On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 at 21:02, Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's the idea. > > Henry Rich > > On 1/23/2021 4:01 PM, 'robert therriault' via Programming wrote: > > So +"0 would run the same way as + and +"+ would disable special code? > > > > I think that would work for me, should I need it (and I remember!) > > > > Cheers, bob > > > >> On Jan 23, 2021, at 12:53, Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> /Cognoscenti/ know that +"0 is slightly different from + and use that > fact wisely, to test or bypass special combinations. > >> > >> Beginners are unaware of the difference and sometimes get poor > performance by needlessly adding a rank. > >> > >> Fortunately there is a lot of beginner code out there! And I think it > is time to fix JE so that u"n is exactly u if n is the same as the rank of > u. > >> > >> To disable special code, write u"u (i. e. make the right operand of " a > verb). > >> > >> Anybody gotta problem with that? > >> > >> Henry Rich > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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
