Since the goal was to make the old documents still usable, changes would
require strong arguments demonstrating their superiority. You are
pitting yourself against Ken Iverson: may the better man win.
I can assure you that whatever is in your 'templating system' had zero
influence on the design and implementation of {{ }} .
When you envision 'even longer modifier trains', you are implicitly
requiring a stack of more than 4 words.
Henry Rich
On 9/26/2021 10:34 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
I've been working on an autoparenthesizing of modifier trains, with interpretations that
would seem much more useful than the "old stuff". I don't have a good
interpretation for A V train, so I guess it could stay as suggested. The following are what
I'd prefer, added after -> ( = means equivalent)
V0 V1 C2 conj V0 V1 (u C2 v) -> V0 (V1 C2) = V1 C2 V0
A0 V1 V2 adv (u A0) V1 V2
C0 V1 V2 conj (u C0 v) V1 V2 -> (C0 V1) V2 = A V2
C0 V1 C2 conj (u C0 v) V1 (u C2 v) -> u (C0 V1) (C2 v)
A0 A1 V2 conj (u A0) (v A1) V2 -> (u A1 A2) V2
N0 C1 A2 adv N0 C1 (u A2) -> u (N0 C1) A2
N0 C1 C2 conj N0 C1 (u C2 v) -> u (N0 C1) (C2 v) = ((N0 C1 u) C2 v) = (v
(u (N0 C1)) C2) parentheses not needed.
V0 C1 A2 adv V0 C1 (u A2) -> u (V0 C1) A2
V0 C1 C2 conj V0 C1 (u C2 v) -> same as N C C
A0 C1 N2 adv (u A0) C1 N2
A0 C1 V2 adv (u A0) C1 V2
A0 C1 A2 conj (u A0) C1 (v A2) -> u A0 (C1 v) A2
A0 C1 C2 conj (u A0) C1 (u C2 v) -> ((u (A0) (C1 v)) C2) = adverb
C0 C1 N2 conj (u C0 v) C1 N2 -> v (u C0)(C1 N2) = (u C0 v)(C1 N2)
C0 C1 V2 conj (u C0 v) C1 V2 -> same as above
C0 C1 A2 conj (u C0 v) C1 (v A2) -> ((u C0 v) C1) A2 = adverb
C0 C1 C2 conj (u C0 v) C1 (u C2 v) -> ((u C0 v) C1) C2 = conjunction A C
A0 C1 adv (u A0) C1 u (adverbial hook) -> (u A0) C1 v
The beauty of the suggested forms is that there is not much to remember, and
allows for parenthesless forms.
V0 V1 C2 -> V0 (V1 C2) is just the only valid parenthesization of the left
expression.
C0 vn C2... More modifiers -> (C0 vn) C2...M ie. when a nv term is between 2
conjunctions it binds to the left one.
Whenever C vn appears, (C vn) is bound is the only special rule. It binds
ahead of other modifiers to right.
To permit even longer modifier trains, while keeping the 4 token stack:
C0 C1 M2 M3 -> C0 C1 (M2 M3)
Reusing parameters in multiple modifiers seems stranger than the still strange
inserting them seemingly arbitrarily within a modifier train. If these are
useful, they are best made into a purpose modifier rather than as default
parsing rules that will confuse.
A cool enhancement would be multiple right bindings to modifier trains that
contain multiple conjunctions:
(C0 C1 M) v -> (C0 v) C1 M ie. A conjunction modifier train binds v to the
leftmost (unbound) conjunction.
((C0 v) C1 M) v2 -> (C0 v) (C1 v2) M = (C0 C1 M) v v2
u ((C0 v) C1 M) -> ((u C0 v) C1) M ie binding from left or right provides options similar
to "old stuff"
templating system that may have formed basis for {{ }}, and allows for rich
custome modifier trains:
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2020-September/056558.html
On Sunday, September 26, 2021, 12:01:45 p.m. EDT, Henry Rich
<henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nostalgic old-timers will be happy to see the return of Modifier Trains,
such as (@/), which were in early J but were deleted long ago. See
https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/fork#invisiblemodifiers .
These trains were one of Ken Iverson's elegant brilliancies. Few used
them, and they are not needed, because anything they do can also be done
with explicit modifiers ({{ u @ v/ }} is equivalent to (@/)). No one
need rush out and look at them.
We have brought them back because to do so was easier than updating all
the old J literature that refers to the forms. And because they're cool.
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
