I don’t have the impression the discusson is polemic and unhelpful.
Even less so since I read your post.
1. I halfway agree on the first part, parentheses serve a purpose;
still, if you can get rid of them without much of a sacrifice,
that’s a good thing. You may always write them if you feel like
it improves readability.
Are we that short of forms? There are 80, that’s plenty.
And I like TIMTOWTDI which is very much true of J, too.
Otoh, if we have better use of a form, I’m the last to
cling to one that has an equally easy synonymous spelling.
2. I’ll try and complete the picture I had only been halfway
through, and most likely I’ll complain about how much in
my opinion current (A C) doesn’t fit. It’s been the odd
one since I started studying that list (which, admittedly,
hasn’t been long ago)
3. Again, I don’t see where all of this is leading and which
language is enabled by which forms. This will take me quite
some time to at least get a grasp of. But I’ll try to give
informed judgement (> than an educated guess) once I get
a somewhat complete picture
4. Actually, I don’t think we need that (C C) semantics for hooks.
But there may be other good reasons.
Hopefully, I’ll be able to present to you a better informed and
more complete picture of what I would want it to be like, and why.
So we’ll know more about where there are areas of con- vs dissensus,
and if any disagreeing positions are backed by good reasons.
Hauke
Am 05.10.21 um 00:05 schrieb Henry Rich:
The discussion is moving toward the polemic and unhelpful. I write to
try to suppress suggestions that have no hope of being implemented soon.
1. Reducing parentheses is not a laudable goal; in fact, I see it as the
opposite. The train A A C should, if possible, mean something different
from (A A) C because Why have two ways to say the same thing? We are
trying to define a grammar with NO reserved words except parentheses;
perhaps only Ken could have attempted it; there are just a handful of
productions to define; they should be as powerful as possible, with as
little duplication as possible.
2. I found the production (A C)->((x A) C x) useful enough in my work
that I gave it a name, the adverbial hook.
3. (C C) -> ((u C v) C) is a drastic change to the language. It consumes
two words and creates something that consumes one or two more words. Is
it brilliant? Is it the camel's nose in the tent? I personally think
it raises a stench to the nostrils of the Almighty. I could be wrong.
But anyone suggesting such a fundamental change must arrive first with
SHORT EXAMPLES showing why the language should consider such forms,
which will be so unfamiliar to the J programmer. If the knowledgeable J
community is convinced, we can consider whether the forms should be
implemented.
A couple of users (including me) suggested (C0 C1)->((u C0 v) (u C1
v)). Why? Because it allows
* easy production of hooks, with V ([. ].) V
* execution of verbs, with V ([. ].) N-phrase
That's a pretty good argument, SUPPORTED BY EXAMPLE. Hooks are important.
I am very reluctant to make changes that don't have demonstrated
benefits, being a disciple of Omar:
O take the cash in hand and waive the rest;
Ah, the brave music of a /distant/ drum!
Henry Rich
On 10/4/2021 4:33 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
That said, this was also a syntax error when we did not have
conjunction trains. So I am not sure why it should be an important
issue now.
if you stick to old permissible AA...A trains then you don't need to
"over" bracket (AA..A)
for CAA..A you also don't need to bracket (for practical purposes)
for AA..ACA, you do need to over bracket the left part.
There are new powers that allow including unbound Cs inside adverb
trains. That is awesome!!! The disadvantage of imposing tedium on
these new powers is greater than the advantage of not double typing
out u in uCu, in my opinion.
On Monday, October 4, 2021, 04:20:13 p.m. EDT, Raul Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hmm...
Conceptually speaking, the A A C A syntax error could be eliminated
without the addition of any new parsing rules, if A A C would
translate to two parse elements (combining the two adverbs and putting
the C back as-is).
That said, this was also a syntax error when we did not have
conjunction trains. So I am not sure why it should be an important
issue now.
I also don't know if there are other implications. I haven't thought
about it that much.
Are you aware of other important cases?
Thanks,
--
----------------------
mail written using NEO
neo-layout.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
