Not quite (at least, not in my conception of it). If it is to be useful in a
larger verb train, you have to work out where exactly x and y come from. For
instance, if we have x (f g n:A h) y, should we apply (x f y) ((x f y) g (x h
y))A (x h y)? Or (x f y) (x g y)A (x h y)? I say it should be chosen in the
same way as $: (which leads to the latter in this case).
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023, Raul Miller wrote:
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
<programm...@jsoftware.com> 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
<elro...@elronnd.net> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
