I find it difficult to reason about this n:
My best guess is that n: is itself an adverb and that u n: A (where u
is a verb and A is an adverb) would be handled by special code which
behaves like
{{ (u y) A}} : {{(x u y) A}}
Does that agree with your thinking?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 7:38 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> To answer Raul, I did not use r2m after all. oa through the magic of cloak
> allows 'Adverb' oa ('X' oa in example) where Adverb has a noun parameter.
>
> > I had: u n: A y is (u y) A y. Whereas you have u r2m A y as simply (u y)
> > A.
>
> if [x] u n: A y produced the result of x u y as input to A, then that is a
> legal way to get Adverb noun inputs from a verb phrase. An adverb can create
> modifiers is the main benefit, and necessity for the functionality.
>
>
> I feel that u n: A y as (u y) A y would be for producing verbs and noun
> results, and can be written as 1 : '(u y) A y' though that doesn't let you
> produce a conjunction from A and return (C y).
>
> If there is ever an attack on the supreme majesty that is Cloak, I do hope n:
> is implemented instead.
>
>
> On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 05:39:30 p.m. EST, Elijah Stone
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh, my n: is a little less expressive than your r2m. I had: u n: A y is (u y)
> A y. Whereas you have u r2m A y as simply (u y) A.
>
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2023, Elijah Stone wrote:
>
> > I proposed your 'r2m' as a primitive n: (for 'now') a while ago, and
> > received
> > a lukewarm response. I don't think it can be implemented other than as a
> > primitive. (And I still think it would be a good idea to have.)
> >
> > Your solution which quotes the modifier name works, but I find it
> > distasteful.
> > And it has some trouble with conjunctions; how do you disambiguate the
> > following?
> >
> > (u r2m) C v
> >
> > u C (v r2m)
> >
> > (u r2m) C (v r2m)
> >
> > You can't, so you would need a separate form for each.
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming 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
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
