Are you convinced that this would be viable?
Near as I can tell, for + r2m {{m&+}} 3 to be syntactically valid, r2m
must not be a conjunction. And the use of m here means that r2m cannot
be a verb. So r2m must be a noun (becoming the m in {{m&+}} which
prevents m from becoming the result of + y) or an adverb.
If r2m is an adverb, it's going to take + as an argument and produce a
result. If that result is anything other than a noun, the sentence
becomes a syntax error.
What am I missing here?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:19 AM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> X =: 1 : 'm&+'
>
>
> What definition of r2m (result to m argument) below would allow X to see the
> result of + y (or x+y) as its m argument?
>
> + r2m X 3
>
> purpose would be for X to produce a modifier from application of "verb".
> Requirement is only that y argument (3 above) is outside any verb phrase.
>
> Jose/Dan's Cloak magic? turn result into atomic or linear representation?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
