That's valid, and now that you mention it, I remember that I've used that sometimes, to save a parentheses pair.
So the ar behavior would have to engage only when one of the arguments is already boxed. Thanks, -- Raul On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 1:15 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <[email protected]> wrote: > > technically, > > 1`2 > > 1 2 > > exists as a non-error though silly use unless trying to trigger error if an > boxed paramerter were provided, which still seems like a silly use, > considering both that such careful guarding would guard against so much more > parameters, and , will also fail with boxed paired with unboxed parameter, > and , provides the natural :: "deal with error" function, that can't as > easily be done with ` errors. > > , behaves identically to ` with nouns. There's no real reason to use ` with > nouns with its current definition. I'd suspect that any historical use would > be for purely esoteric obfuscation motives. > > so if 9.03 is already committed to breaking things. I think reworking ` to > produce ar s all the time (which is what "ti" is defined to do, as well as > "atomic representation of unboxed nouns in place of those nouns." you refer), > I think would provide a welcome specialization of ` for use in gerund forming. > > This would solve the following common errors as well > > > f`0`]} > > to transform head (or other specific) index of an array. This form is > allowed in } as long as nouns are properly gerundified. > > On Friday, October 15, 2021, 09:43:56 a.m. EDT, Raul Miller > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps also worth noting that ` could have its definition updated to > use the atomic representation of unboxed nouns in place of those > nouns. > > That's not exactly the definition of your ti conjunction, but it also > would not change the behavior of any current non-error case, and would > address the common cases. > > (Also, boxing in general is going to require a little extra coding > work because the abstraction is all about combining data structures > which otherwise would not be combined.) > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 8:28 AM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On the off chance anyone forgot or is not sick of hearing it, CC is still > > superfluous given a conjunction called "ti" (or redefinition of `) that > > builds a gerund from nouns in addition to verbs > > > > > > 1 (& :. (((-ti)(`:6)) & ].)) o. > > > > 1&o. :.(_1&o.) > > > > but also note that the original {{-m}} definition met the "semi-tacit" > > criteria of returning a tacit expression without any significant computation > > > > > > but I am liking the CCC definition (more than similar/equivalent ACC). > > Which can also be used to construct uACu from an A and C with: > > > > > > ((([.A) C [.) a:) > > > > > > if AC were uA(Cv), original request could be simplified as > > > > > > (& :. ({{-m}} & ) NB. or with the ti construct > > > > > > > > On Friday, October 15, 2021, 03:57:46 a.m. EDT, Elijah Stone > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Oct 2021, Henry Rich wrote: > > > > > oi =: (& :. ((-([.].)) & ].)) o. > > > 1 oi > > > 1&o. :.(_1&o.) > > > > Putting the V N bident to good use already, I see :) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
