Here, I suspect that you're only getting noun values in your closure
-- you'll have to sprinkle those noun references with something like
`:6 if you want anything else. That's probably not a huge problem.
But, thinking about this, personally I'm not seeing a lot of
motivation for this approach, either. (What problems would this solve?
I'm sure there are some great motivating examples out there. And
closures certainly have a lot of popularity. But... position in a list
can be thought of as being conceptually analogous to a variable, so it
should be apparent that we already have some support for the
algorithmic role of closures.)
(I should perhaps also note, here, that conjunctions and adverbs which
have verb results are self-currying.)
Anyways... I'm not thinking particularly deep thoughts here -- I'm
just reflexively reaching for motivating examples (which might assist
in forming some of those sorts of thoughts).
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 7:01 PM Elijah Stone <elro...@elronnd.net> wrote:
>
> I suggest:
>
> [x] u &:: (k;v;k;v...) y
>
> Will evaluate u with bindings kvkv... (raveled) active. Should work for both
> explicit and tacit. Implementation is allowed to coalesce; e.g., u &:: (k;v)
> &:: (k;v) `'' may be rendered u &:: (k;v;k;v), deduplicated, &c.
> Substitution also ok; eg (f%#) &:: ('f';+/`'') becomes +/%#.
>
> I would like for verbs defined inside of explicit verbs to be implicitly
> closed; this is obviously a compat break, but.
>
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023, Elijah Stone wrote:
>
> > I don't love the proposal, as I think a conception of verbs as first class
> > should involve _less_ hackery with representations, not more. But I don't
> > feel that strongly either way.
> >
> > More fruitful, IMO, would be to work out how to add closures, as I think
> > there
> > is a more urgent need for that (u./v. is a band-aid). Perhaps taking
> > inspiration from kernel (but skipping the mutation!).
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Jan 2023, Henry Rich 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
