OK, I'll look at tte, but I am highly confident that replacing u"n with
u (when n = the ranks of u) will not affect anything other than display
and special code. You would see
plus =: +"0
plus
+
which is in itself instructive.
Henry Rich
On 1/23/2021 7:53 PM, Ian Clark wrote:
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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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
--
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
