are you saying that proposal is: ". ".'3&+'
3&+ NB. adverb? On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 03:46:54 p.m. EST, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: With the proposed enhancement to ". you don't /need/ to produce a modifier; you can execute the AR of the modifier. Henry Rich On 1/17/2023 3:12 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote: > so an =: arnoun > > an =: 1 : '<@:((,''0'') ,&< ]) m' NB. atomic rep of noun as an adverb (right > arg) > > eval_z_ =: 1 : 'if. 2 ~: 3!:0 m do. m else. a: 1 : m end.' NB.1 : ' a: 1 : m' > > aar =: 1 : 'if. isNoun ''u'' do. q =. m eval else. q =. u end. 5!:1 < ''q'' ' > > aar provides the functionality of an, and ar, but when a name or modifier is > provided, it provides the ar of the name/modifier. > > >> ". (arnoun value) , (". '+&') > using the above functions and then building an adverb with it: > > ((3 an) , ('+&' aar)) `:6 NB. or ((3 aar) , ('+&' aar)) `:6 > > +&3 > > > The moral of the example is that if we want to build up a noun/ar before > applying `:6 to it, we can already do so "legally". > > In the above example, do so without an extra ". ... though perhaps (". ars) > produces the same result as (ars)`:6, which has not been made fully clear. > > where (u 'adv' oa) is equivalent to (u n: adv), > > Cloak=: aar(0:`)(,^:) > > oa =: 1 :'u Cloak @:' NB. apply quoted adverb after result. Can produce > modifier from previous verb result as argument. > > 3 ((([ 'an' oa) , (] 'aar' oa))'`:6'oa) '+&' NB. everything between () is >standalone function.... looks like a dyadic verb. > > +&3 > > The missing J functionality is making a modifier (or non-noun) from "nouns" > and verbs. It is not the inability to create ars. > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 12:13:21 p.m. EST, Henry Rich > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Please confine this to my proposal - not including n: . > > It seems to me that if ". can produce any part of speech, and can be > applied to ARs, it can do anything. What is it missing? For example, > > ". (arnoun value) , (". '+&') > > would produce the AR of (+&value) once you have written a suitable verb > to take the AR of a noun. > > Henry Rich > > On 1/17/2023 11:59 AM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote: >> 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 >> <[email protected]> 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
