Hmm...
You do have some extra parenthesis there.
Or, this works:
% ((+/`) (``:6) ]:) #
+/ % #
And, I suppose I should point out that
{{% +/ u v}}
would work similarly to your (((+/`) h ]:)(% h)), and is concise.
That said, ((``)`)(`:6) is presumably shorthand for something longer
(you need that +/ in there somehow, if I understand what you are
saying ... though I also have not convinced myself of how it would
work, and with +/ in there I don't see how your CC syntax can be
relevant).
Take care,
--
Raul
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 9:46 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> To get the intuitive potential functionality instead of a syntax error
>
> AAC must be written in form of ACA as (AA)C]: , and
> AACA must also be transformed into ACA as (AA)CA
>
> as concrete example
>
> % ((+/`) (`(`:6)) ]:) #
>
> +/ % #
>
> with h =. `(`:6)
>
> (+/`) is a new train that used to have to be written ((+/)`)
>
> composing with h requires the right A (]:) to form ACA train.
>
> suppose you now want to enhance your total modifier by putting a % as a
> leading train tine (normalize data to multiple of average)
>
> it is relatively easy to compose to the right.
>
> % (((+/`) h ]:)(% h)) # NB. still requires parenthesizing full expression
>
> % (+/ % #)
>
>
> Exercise for the reader on how the enhancement could be composed by having
> say (%`) towards left of expression as composing strategy.
>
> with my CC proposal, the first would be
>
> ``(`:6) or (``)`:6
>
> and 2nd
>
> ((``)`)(`:6)
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 4, 2021, 08:28:06 p.m. EDT, Raul Miller
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> But AAC and AACA are not adverb trains, and as near as I can tell have
> always been syntax errors.
>
> Anyways, it's difficult to talk about such things without useful examples.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
>
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 7:25 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Overbracketting AA..A is needed because AAC is not defined, and to get
> > AACA, (AA)CA must be done.
> >
> > CAA is already defined equivalent to C(AA)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, October 4, 2021, 06:24:30 p.m. EDT, Raul Miller
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I do not think I need to "over bracket" AAAA now.
> >
> > Near as I can tell, J903's version an adverb train produces the same
> > consequences that we get from j902's version of an adverb train.
> >
> > Do you have any examples where this is not the case?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Raul
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:35 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
> > <[email protected]> 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,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Raul
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 3:43 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Going to use reply to Pepe as a case for changing trains before its too
> > > > late (ie before they get used)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > hook=. `(`:6) NB. (Equivalently, hook=. ``:6)
> > > >
> > > > This is an excellent contribution that shows the CC hook (defined as
> > > > duplicate arguments: (u C1 v)(u C2 v) offers no benefits.
> > > >
> > > > The only imaginable cases so far is to produce a hook, or to return (u
> > > > n) or (v m) to caller context.
> > > >
> > > > the only possible use of u n over u y (which would occur without the
> > > > CC) is that it is possible to bind u or n partially in an expression,
> > > > or if u n returns a verb or modifier. There is no natural u which can
> > > > legally do the former.
> > > >
> > > > It is possible to create a conjunction that replaces ` such that will
> > > > accept nouns or verbs as its arguments and produce gerunds. Without
> > > > full definition, my version is:
> > > >
> > > > ti =: 2 : 0
> > > >
> > > > if. -. u isgerundA do. u =. u ar end.
> > > >
> > > > if. -. v isgerundA do. v =. v ar end.
> > > >
> > > > u,v
> > > >
> > > > )
> > > >
> > > > a different conjunction is possible/needed if it is to allow quoted
> > > > modifiers to have their atomic representation included.
> > > >
> > > > with h. =: ti`:6
> > > >
> > > > with u ti n `:6 not legally capable of forming a verb or modifier, it
> > > > is still possible to create that functionality with u n producing a
> > > > string, and
> > > >
> > > > h.(1 :)
> > > >
> > > > could then be used to turn that future string computation into an
> > > > adverb.
> > > >
> > > > C C -> ((u C1 v)C2)
> > > >
> > > > has benefits compared to using workarounds... Benefits > no benefits.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In the case of A C -> adv: u A (C u)
> > > >
> > > > the only "mainstream" benefit is the ability to make a conjunction
> > > > "reflexive" (]: C)
> > > >
> > > > theoretical completeness aside, this is not a huge programming
> > > > application, though if you knew a different way to provide this in a
> > > > quoteless manner, that would be best to eliminate all benefits.
> > > >
> > > > Even if some possiblity is created, benefits are inferior compared to
> > > > this AC definition:
> > > >
> > > > A C -> u A (C v)
> > > >
> > > > similar to A C A of A C ]:
> > > >
> > > > The annoyance of A C A pattern is that (A A) C A must be explicit to
> > > > have a sane interpretation. More parentheses means more tedious
> > > > annoyances in writting code, and avoiding tedious annoyances is a
> > > > benefit.
> > > >
> > > > My total vision for the trains is that it is higher value to have auto
> > > > "pairing"/parenthesizing of "free" u and v's near Cs, than the general
> > > > minimal benefits that exist from the trains, although I will also
> > > > support the explicit triple parenthesing of as one example (V V C) as
> > > > superceding the auto-pairing rules.
> > > >
> > > > But forcing AA...A trains to now be parenthesized sometimes is a major
> > > > tedium downgrade compared to previous versions of J.
> > > >
> > > > So, for sure I will always hate AC and CC if they persist past beta.
> > > >
> > > > Reflexive conjunctions don't have the same mathematical symmetry of
> > > > applying well understood model/concepts of doubling, squaring, 0 and 1
> > > > which are so well understood that they have their own primitives
> > > > instead of using reflexive forms. If you know you want a reflexive
> > > > conjunction application, then you can be forced into the tedious
> > > > repetition of uACu or uCu.
> > > >
> > > > Even though each potential implementation of AC creates tedium in some
> > > > applications, it is far more tedious to parenthesize many future AA
> > > > trains then to provide duplicate conjunction parameters which no built
> > > > in conjunctions have any meaningful conceptual frameworks for.
> > > > Exception example:
> > > >
> > > > quadruple =: +:(]:@) NB. requires 2 more "shifted upper row" typing
> > > > characters than +:@+. Reading requires looking up the never used (]:C)
> > > > pattern.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, October 2, 2021, 07:51:20 p.m. EDT, Jose Mario Quintana
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 1. it breaks existing valid code.
> > > >
> > > > Certainly, I had to repair my hg adverb in a couple of places (see
> > > > below)
> > > >
> > > > > Alternative of (C0 V1) C2 turns this into A C train which has useful
> > > > interpretation. Avoids parentheses in
> > > >
> > > > I am fond of the C0 A1 bident and to a lesser extent of the A0 C1 A2
> > > > trident. I like to write a pseudo while conjunction as,
> > > >
> > > > w=. ^:(^:_) NB. (Equivalently, using a resurrected trident, w=. ^:^:_
> > > > )
> > > >
> > > > u w v
> > > > |value error
> > > > | u w v
> > > >
> > > > Darn! This new annoying feature that now triggers errors related to
> > > > m,n,u,v,x, and y even outside the scope of explicit forms is
> > > > interfering.
> > > > Trying again,
> > > >
> > > > alpha w beta
> > > > alpha^:beta^:_
> > > >
> > > > However, the main reason I like it is that the production of tacit
> > > > conjunctions can be reduced to the production of related adverbs; for
> > > > example, the conjunction (hook) to produce a hook can be written as,
> > > >
> > > > hook=. `(`:6) NB. (Equivalently, hook=. ``:6)
> > > >
> > > > alpha hook beta
> > > > alpha beta
> > > >
> > > > Alternatively, after scripting a repaired hg adverb script (that is, by
> > > > replacing the corresponding lines by
> > > >
> > > > d=. (a3=. (@: (aw f.)) ('av'f.)) (a4=. "62) (a5=. `:6)
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > hg=. (`((ar'a6')`(ar'a5'))) (`:6)
> > > >
> > > > ),
> > > >
> > > > hook=. ]hg
> > > >
> > > > alpha hook beta
> > > > alpha beta
> > > >
> > > > Moreover, using a suitable tacit verb instead of ] one can produce any
> > > > arbitrary form that is a function of its arguments with one caveat: noun
> > > > arguments would have to be boxed. This brings me to the A0 C1 A2
> > > > trident.
> > > >
> > > > This trident can be used to operate on raw noun arguments. One can
> > > > define
> > > > first a noun boxing adverb,
> > > >
> > > > box=. ((<,'<') ; ])hg
> > > > assert (<1 2 3) -: 1 2 3 box
> > > >
> > > > (Incidentally, I realize I am using a shotgun to kill a fly, I know I
> > > > can
> > > > easily use a pistol instead but I wonder what would be a gentle and kind
> > > > method to kill this fly (that is, to produce a nicer equivalent adverb
> > > > to
> > > > the box adverb) using the resurrected trains or your alternative
> > > > versions.)
> > > >
> > > > Then one can operate on noun arguments; for instance,
> > > >
> > > > 1 2 3 ((box ` box)(] hg)) (u0`u1`u2)
> > > > ┌─────┬──────────┐
> > > > │1 2 3│┌──┬──┬──┐│
> > > > │ ││u0│u1│u2││
> > > > │ │└──┴──┴──┘│
> > > > └─────┴──────────┘
> > > >
> > > > Again, replacing ] above by a suitable verb one can produce, in
> > > > principle,
> > > > any arbitrary form (that is a function of its arguments); for example,
> > > > the
> > > > conjunction (linear) which produces the corresponding linear
> > > > combination of
> > > > a list of verbs represented by the gerund can be produced as follows,
> > > >
> > > > 9!:14'' NB. By the way...
> > > > j903/j64/windows/beta-r/commercial/
> > > > www.jsoftware.com/2021-09-26T14:46:15/clang-12-0-0/SLEEF=1
> > > >
> > > > e=. &.>
> > > > x=. @:[
> > > > y=. @:]
> > > >
> > > > left=. ('';1;0)&{::
> > > > right=. ('';1;1)&{::
> > > > plus=. ([ , (<,'+') , ])
> > > > times=. < o ([ , (<,'*') , ])
> > > >
> > > > linear=. (box`box)((an e o left > o ((plus e/) . (times e)) <e o right)
> > > > hg)
> > > > linear=. 'linear'f.
> > > >
> > > > 0 1 2 linear (u0`u1`u2)
> > > > (00 * u0) + (01 * u1) + 2 * u2
> > > > 1 0j2 3j3 linear (^.`(% + ^)`(1 + *:))
> > > > (1j0 * ^.) + (0j2 * % + ^) + 3j3 * 1 + *:
> > > >
> > > > (The linear conjunction is not only tacit (and fixed),
> > > >
> > > > _66 [\ (5!:5)@:<'linear'
> > > > (((("62)((`'') (&(((<,'<') ; ])@:(<@:((0;1;0)&({::)))@:[)) ((`(<(,
> > > > '0');_))(`:6))))(`:6)) ` ((("62)((`'') (&(((<,'<') ; ])@:(<@:((0;1
> > > > ;0)&({::)))@:[)) ((`(<(,'0');_))(`:6))))(`:6)))((("62)((`'') (&((<
> > > > @:((,'0') ,&:< ])&.>@:(('';1;0)&({::)) >@:(([ , (<,'+') , ])&.>/ .
> > > > (<@:([ , (<,'*') , ])&.>)) <&.>@:(('';1;1)&({::)))@:(<@:((0;1;0)&(
> > > > {::)))@:[)) ((`(<(,'0');_))(`:6))))(`:6))
> > > >
> > > > but it was produced tacitly, which is the only acceptable way from the
> > > > perspective of a genuine tacit fan(atic). ;) )
> > > >
> > > > I am curious, again, to see how old-timers or newcomers can employ the
> > > > resurrected bidents and tridents (or your alternative versions) to
> > > > facilitate simpler equivalent versions of the linear conjunction shown
> > > > above.
> > > >
> > > > P.S. I do know how to produce a conceptually simpler, at least in my
> > > > mind,
> > > > version of the linear conjunction (if necessary, as a curried adverb
> > > > which
> > > > effectively takes a couple of arguments (aka, double adverb); for
> > > > instance
> > > > when using a j807 interpreter) the wicked way. That is by casting
> > > > blasphemous spells which compel tacit verbs to produce also verbs,
> > > > adverbs,
> > > > and conjunctions; just as adverbs and conjunctions do. In fact, I wrote
> > > > the linear conjunction first the wicked way and use it as a model for
> > > > writing the orthodox version (shown above) afterward.
> > > >
> > > > 9!:14''
> > > > j807/j64nonavx/windows/release/commercial/
> > > > www.jsoftware.com/2018-10-05T10:48:34
> > > >
> > > > NB. After scripting the wicked tacit toolkit...
> > > >
> > > > plus=. [: [ +cv ] Train
> > > > times=. [: [ *cv ] Train
> > > >
> > > > linear=. > o (an e x ((plus e/) . (times e)) < o train "0 y) f.s2c
> > > >
> > > > 0 1 2 (u0`u1`u2) linear
> > > > (0 * u0) + (1 * u1) + 2 * u2
> > > >
> > > > 1 0j2 3j3 (^.`(% + ^)`(1 + *:)) linear
> > > > (1 * ^.) + (0j2 * % + ^) + 3j3 * 1 + *:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 8:26 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <
> > > > [email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Lets start with the 2 worst, irredeemable most useless, trains
> > > > >
> > > > > C0 V1 C2 -> (u C0 v) V1 (u C2 v) fork result. duplicating input to
> > > > > both
> > > > edge conjunctions. Will never be used.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alternative of (C0 V1) C2 turns this into A C train which has useful
> > > > interpretation. Avoids parentheses in one of the 2 natural (validating)
> > > > parenthesizings of this string.
> > > > >
> > > > > C1 A2 -> u C1 (u A2) . A far less dumb alternative would be u C1 (v
> > > > A2). At least both AC and CA would be conjunctions.
> > > > >
> > > > > I prefer (u C1 v) A2 out of consistency and coherence. While u C1 (v
> > > > > A2)
> > > > may have a use, its 50/50 which would be used/wanted more.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The next category is that of slightly longer combinations of A and C
> > > > > (the words coherent and consistent refer to qualities that let you
> > > > understand a concept/execution train instead of memorizing incoherent
> > > > and
> > > > inconsistent result tables. A highly valuable, if not priceless,
> > > > aspect of
> > > > a language.)
> > > > >
> > > > > AAC not defined. bad syntax error. (AA)C is fine interpretation and
> > > > already defined sanely. AA -> (AA) is everywhere else in J.
> > > > > ACA -> (u A) C (v A). Not useless, but not obviously more frequently
> > > > wanted than coherent ((u A) C v) A2
> > > > > CAA -> coherent
> > > > > CAC -> doesn't exist. syntax error. Can be ((u C v) A) C2. An
> > > > > adverb
> > > > (or CA) result.
> > > > > ACC -> (u A) C1 (u C2 v) reuses u, making it useless. A perfectly
> > > > coherent result would be one equivalent to both (AC)C and A(CC).
> > > > Associativity is prizeable.
> > > > > CCA -> (u C1 v) C (u A). same uselessness. (CC)A or C(CA) preferably
> > > > identical interpretations is obviously better.
> > > > > CC not defined. Most important of all. -> ((u C1 v) C2) is an
> > > > > adverb.
> > > > The consistency with AC is that arguments are inserted with their
> > > > natural
> > > > parenthesized order, and then consistent with V0 V1 C2 -> (V1 C2 V0)
> > > > which
> > > > allows using conjunctions in strand/double adverb mode, which avoids the
> > > > frequent error of wishing the v argument to a conjunction referred to
> > > > the
> > > > full verb phrase on the right.
> > > > >
> > > > > First, it is more useful that definitions exist than not.
> > > > > Two, definitions that reuse arguments for different modifiers have no
> > > > applicable use expectation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Its one thing to defend the interpretations that are not useless,
> > > > > over a
> > > > more consistent approach. I could listen to such a defense. It's an
> > > > other
> > > > to defend useless interpretations.
> > > > >
> > > > > The next/last category are the ones that result in trains. Rather
> > > > > than
> > > > itemize each train, let me just go over one cool example that I can
> > > > think
> > > > of.
> > > > >
> > > > > (] #~ ")
> > > > > 1 (= 2&|)(] #~ ")_1 i.5
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 3
> > > > >
> > > > > its cool, except that for the " conjunction, the correct right
> > > > > argument
> > > > is always _1 . But there is a cooler adverb form:
> > > > >
> > > > > (("_1) # ])
> > > > >
> > > > > Noting that it's cool, might lose track that the purpose of the
> > > > > coolness
> > > > is that it can be assigned as an adverb. The power of J is in its
> > > > higher
> > > > order functions that can be assigned. The alternative definition is:
> > > > >
> > > > > select =: 1 : 'u"_1 # ]'
> > > > >
> > > > > it is already very easy to make train results from adverbs. And an
> > > > enhancement:
> > > > >
> > > > > ns =: 2 : 'u"_1 v ]'
> > > > >
> > > > > allows substitutes for # as v. Including i. or perhaps a compound
> > > > > verb
> > > > that dug through a boxed structure inside items. A super cool
> > > > conjunction
> > > > that was extremely easy to write (the important value provided), and
> > > > even
> > > > cooler than the train version. Cooler means harder to name.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with inconsistent "non binding" of some arguments in
> > > > > modifier
> > > > trains is that I can write the following
> > > > >
> > > > > (] #~ " _1) NB. parses just fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > The intent is that if the rule of leftmost 3 parameters in a modifier
> > > > train get grouped together, and intent suggested by _1 indent, then
> > > > perhaps
> > > > this means
> > > > >
> > > > > (] (#~) ")_1 NB. making an adverb out of original conjunction through
> > > > binding
> > > > >
> > > > > when it actually means:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 (= 2&|)(] (#~ " _1)) i.5
> > > > >
> > > > > 0 0 0 0
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 0 0 0
> > > > >
> > > > > 0 0 0 0
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 1 1 0
> > > > >
> > > > > 0 0 0 0
> > > > >
> > > > > It is a minority of J users that understand trains. Adding
> > > > > conjunctions
> > > > and adverbs into permissible train formation items just adds an
> > > > exponential
> > > > rate of errors, and removes accessiblity even further for most J users.
> > > > Sometimes the modifiers are binding, sometimes they generate a modifier
> > > > that results in a train... increases reading taxation, that requires
> > > > good
> > > > memory of large inconsistent result tables, and whether a pattern fits
> > > > into
> > > > one of the entries, and loses the mental simplicity of following a
> > > > train's
> > > > dyadic/ambivalent terms to understand it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > If we change the old definitions that just means
> > > > > we have even more work to do.
> > > > >
> > > > > This can be done from the parsing table approach which may be
> > > > > manageable
> > > > >
> > > > > > SHORT examples
> > > > >
> > > > > +/ - @: -> +/ (-@:) -> -@:(+/) NB. gains strand notation for
> > > > conjunctions. Things consistently bind when you expect them to.
> > > > >
> > > > > + - * (@ @) -> + - (* @) @ -> + (*@-)@ -> *@-@+ NB. natural strand
> > > > binding order. Intuitively extendible to longer modifier train "saved
> > > > name"
> > > > >
> > > > > If the A V -> V A proposal is accepted then,
> > > > >
> > > > > @ (+/) - -> -@(+/) NB. double left arguments also parse. This adds
> > > > flexibility to C C train for binding order:
> > > > >
> > > > > * (@ @)- + -> * (@-)(@+) -> *@-@+ NB. same end result but with more
> > > > partial binding options. Can be good simplicity argument for + - left
> > > > binding order for same result.
> > > > >
> > > > > Consistency with AC and CA means that binding any argument within the
> > > > conjunction train is easy
> > > > >
> > > > > (@@+) -> (@(@+)), (@-@) -> ((@-)@), (*@@) -> (*@)@ are all partial
> > > > bindings that allow same end result with further conjunction or strand
> > > > parameters... when AC and CA are consistent.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > part of the consistency importance is what happens when modifiers
> > > > > return
> > > > modifiers. Keep consuming right arguments is the "correct" behaviour.
> > > > New
> > > > surprise incoherent trains are not welcome.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, September 27, 2021, 01:15:18 p.m. EDT, Henry Rich <
> > > > [email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The primary goal of reintroducing the old trains was to make the old
> > > > > documents valid. Whether there is a better way to define the old
> > > > > trains
> > > > > is not to the point. If we change the old definitions that just means
> > > > > we have even more work to do.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are not improving your credibility by asserting that 'all of the
> > > > > train results... are at best marginally useful'. I used them quite a
> > > > > bit and was sad to see them go. Indeed, I never had a case where I
> > > > > wanted to write a modifier and found the trains wanting. I admit
> > > > > that I
> > > > > was content with the structure of J as it is, not trying to create a
> > > > > different approach to function definition.
> > > > >
> > > > > You would have to actually demonstrate examples where an alternative
> > > > > definition would enable some important new application. Then we could
> > > > > judge whether the change is worth the large effort required. I would
> > > > > add, we would need to do this before the beta period expires.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have just now gone through some of your list of proposed changes
> > > > > and I
> > > > > have yet to find one I agree with, but that's just my opinion. The
> > > > > burden is on you to demonstrate the superiority of your proposal.
> > > > > Just
> > > > > one SHORT example would be a good start, something important that the
> > > > > old trains are lacking. With luck we might find that you are
> > > > > redefining
> > > > > something so obscure that no one has ever used it, for which a change
> > > > > would be easier.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the meantime, adding parentheses to your bidents is harmless and
> > > > > solves your problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is gratifying to see the interest that this old code has ignited.
> > > > >
> > > > > Henry Rich
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/27/2021 12:46 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
> > > > > >> Since you can
> > > > > > easily make your old code work by putting parentheses in +@/ to make
> > > > > > (+@)/ and that preserves old documents, that would be the best
> > > > > > solution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That J sometimes "does what I mean" is a mixed blessing. Great
> > > > > > when it
> > > > works, but relying on it means syntax errors due to its incompleteness
> > > > in
> > > > applying the intuitive concepts that could make writing modifiers
> > > > easier.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It all boils down to "could Ken have made a mistake"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Modifier trains are an awesome idea, and it is great to have
> > > > > > enhanced
> > > > interpretations of code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Removing these interpretations for J6 were viewed as a better idea
> > > > > > than
> > > > these interpretations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The appeal of modifiers trains that return trains can seem less
> > > > > > scary
> > > > than modifiers that return modifiers. The latter though is part of the
> > > > language since at least J6. Some of the "old trains" do the sane
> > > > modifier
> > > > autobinding, while others return trains.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All of the train results, if not completely useless, are at best
> > > > marginally useful. A good test would be for someone to come up with a
> > > > single useful function in that form. Even if such a function exists, it
> > > > can be easily/clearly written as a custom modifier in less time than it
> > > > takes to research whether one of the train producing modifier trains
> > > > provides a useful equivalent shortcut.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CC CA AC CnvC provide tremendous benefit in having valid
> > > > interpretations. Who wouldn't prefer more valid parsings and less
> > > > syntax
> > > > errors. But the benefit only exists when interpretations are coherent,
> > > > useful, and consistent. That benefit only occurs if all of the modifier
> > > > trains produce the natural modifier bindings that a fully bound in place
> > > > expression would produce.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That it might be scary to consider CC an adverb that produces a
> > > > conjunction (u C1)C2 -> AC -> (uA)(Cv) or a conjunction that provides an
> > > > adverb ((u C1 v)C2) doesn't force you to use the scariness. It is
> > > > consistent with the C C V train, and almost the V C C train. (the
> > > > execution of v1 C v2 C V is (v1 C v2) C V, while V C C produces V C (v2
> > > > C
> > > > v3)). While V C C can have useful applications, the "special"
> > > > bracketing
> > > > can be accomplished if CA had a sane interpretation (u C v)A. Then V
> > > > C1 C2
> > > > to have current interpretation can be written as C2 (V C1).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To Ken's credit, the dumb C A train can be avoided with C A 1 : 'u'.
> > > > ie C A A is sane.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > C V C (and all duplicate u/v modifier trains) however are just
> > > > > > mistakes
> > > > and useless.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reintroducing these trains has great potential. But we need to fix
> > > > > > the
> > > > bad ones before code gets written using them, and irreparably breaks J's
> > > > potential.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It can also break complex embedded existing code. Techniques for
> > > > strand/double adverb notation might rely on interpreter quirk, though
> > > > are
> > > > no longer needed with my proposal.
> > > > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
