The proposal for
u n: -> [x] u y (and then u n: M => (([x] u y)M) )
would work with this so that
". n: `:6
can consume "the output" though 2. suggests doing this. Would:
". '+';'/'; '1 2 3'
produce 3 boxes? a linear expression?
> willing to use dangerous backdoor hacks into JE to achieve it
Dangerous seems harsh. On the other side, verbs "needing to be" first class
may not be necessary. Verb phrases being able to produce non-nouns is the big
missing capability. Implies verb phrases can be different to verbs.
n: is a very useful bridge for this distinction. verbs can continue to be noun
result only, and tested independently. Adverbs/modifiers that take noun
arguments can also be tested independently. n: as a bridge can "document" that
the overall verb phrase can produce a modifier.
I think n: can "complete J" with full transformability between verbs and
modifiers.
(n: C n:) NB. allow 2 verb phrases (u and v) to input to conjunction,
potentially returning modifier.
I like the proposals for ". and apply. They are insufficient without n: due to
not being able to be combined into a "larger" non-noun producing function.
On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 08:35:59 p.m. EST, Henry Rich
<henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have never understood the zeal for having verbs return verbs, but it
must be real if some are willing to use dangerous backdoor hacks into JE
to achieve it. ARs make it possible to pass verbs around, but executing
them requires dropping into explicit code. To remedy this, I offer a
proposal, backward compatible with older J:
1. (". y) and Apply (x 128!:2 y) to be modified so that if the result of
execution is not a noun, it is replaced by its AR (instead of '' as
previously).
2. (". y) and Apply to be modified so that if y (for ".) or x (for
Apply) is boxed, the sentence is executed as usual except that each box
is converted using (box 5!:0) before being put onto the execution stack.
The idea is that you can execute (".
expr-producing-AR,exp-producing-AR,...) without having to get any
modifiers involved.
Sentence execution can produce ARs, and can take ARs created by verbs to
represent verbs and modifiers. That sounds pretty classy to me, but I
don't know whether it's first-class.
Henry Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
