Could this be called templating?
> (f%#) &:: ('f';+/`'') becomes +/%#.
what if f were already defined? (usually substituted in verb phrases)
adverbs and conjunctions give this functionality.
I'm happy with the templating engine in this thread
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2020-September/056558.html
I'm not sure what you meant by &c.
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 07:01:15 p.m. EST, 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
