Distinguishing between "semi tacit" and explicit modifiers is done by whether
the ( : string) or {{}} modifier "mentions" x and y. If it does, it cannot
return a non-noun. It is a "glorified verb" with extra parameters. If it
doesn't it has all the power of tacit modifiers.
There is no "magic explicit path" to "power" unless you mean side effects to
assign globals to all the modifiers you want within monolithic verbs. Then you
would be defining useful as limited to permanent global defined modifiers/verbs
and annonymous functions become "therefore" not useful.
On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 03:30:13 a.m. EST, Raul Miller
<rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
Generally speaking, in computing contexts, "powerful" is orthogonal to "useful".
Which might be related to why explicit definitions are looked down on,
by some in the J community -- It seems that they're "too powerful".
But if the problem is that explicit definitions are insufficiently
constrained, why should we want to burden tacit definitions with this
defect?
--
Raul
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 12:40 AM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
<programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> the boxed verbs are limited. I mentioned that I can store as ARs instead.
> But extracting 1 verb is a verb that can be applied:
>
> (1 {:: (('X' Cloak ("0)(<@) )) 3 4 ) 2 3 4
>
> 6 7 8
>
> Because "X cloaked" is applied "0, the results are assembled based on the
> shape of y (i.3 3 in original example)
>
>
> > What 'major need' is my proposal not addressing? It seems to me that it
> allows you to return non-nouns (as ARs) and execute them (using ".).
>
> ARs are nouns. We already know how to produce ARs. Modifiers are first
> class, and more powerful than verbs, because they can produce non-nouns. A
> path to channel verb results (nouns) to modifiers (n: as I've proposed it) is
> a path to leverage the power of modifiers. Can do so without changing verbs
> or modifiers. It's a big improvement. Or just let Cloak keep "working".
>
> The original thread for (A n) request was about attributes possibly
> annotating a noun. This post uses an (A APPLY n) solution to access and
> return such decorated nouns:
> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2023-January/061916.html
>
> Closures is a new topic. This is typically considered binding function and
> noun, where access can change the function or noun.
>
> The basic version is Modifiers are useful. That a verb could access its x
> and y arguments to produce a result before feeding that to a modifier in a
> single verb phrase is useful. It is still mechanics of verbs returning nouns.
>
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 10:27:18 p.m. EST, Henry Rich
> <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Your ('X' Cloak(<@)("0) i.3 3) is interesting. It seems to display as
> an array of boxed verbs. What would be the result if you opened that?
> Can you apply all the verbs on an argument? What is the verb rank of
> the boxed array, especially if the contents are verbs with different
> ranks? How are the results assembled?
>
> What 'major need' is my proposal not addressing? It seems to me that it
> allows you to return non-nouns (as ARs) and execute them (using ".).
>
> Please answer these questions without reverting to your
> eval/isNoun/Cloak etc. How your noncompliant methods work is immaterial
> to this discussion (though they are interesting); I want to learn about
> deficiencies in my proposal.
>
> I appreciate that we are all trying to make J better. I just think that
> having verbs return non-nouns is not the way to do it.
>
> Henry Rich
>
>
>
> On 1/17/2023 10:10 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
> > More ways to generate ARs doesn't hurt, but its not verbs returning
> > non-nouns, or a path (n:) to obtain non-nouns from a verb phrase, so then
> > the proposal is not meeting a major need.
> >
> > repeating definitions,
> >
> > eval_z_ =: 1 : 'if. 2 ~: 3!:0 m do. m else. a: 1 : m end.' NB.1 : ' a: 1 :
> > m'
> >
> > isNoun_z_ =: (0 = 4!:0 ( :: 0:))@:<
> >
> > aar =: 1 : 'if. isNoun ''u'' do. q =. m eval else. q =. u end. 5!:1 < ''q''
> > '
> >
> > Cloak=: aar(0:`)(,^:)
> >
> > X=: 1 : 'm&+'
> >
> > to answer your hypothetical DV question, it is actually possible to box
> > verbs.
> >
> > 'X' Cloak(<@)("0) i.3 3
> >
> > ┌────┬────┬───┐
> >
> > │00&+│01&+│2&+│
> >
> > ├────┼────┼───┤
> >
> > │3&+ │4&+ │5&+│
> >
> > ├────┼────┼───┤
> >
> > │6&+ │7&+ │8&+│
> >
> > └────┴────┴───┘
> >
> > ('x3 x4' =. ('X' Cloak(<@)("0) 3 4))
> >
> > x3
> >
> > 3&+
> >
> > x3 2
> >
> > 5
> >
> >
> > using boxed verbs does require fishing them out, and an ar adverb (('ar'
> > oa) instead of (<@) makes them more "flexible". Parser and display seem
> > resilient/solid to these shenanigans.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 06:53:15 p.m. EST, Henry Rich
> > <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Verbs are first-class in J, in that they can be passed as ARs or by name
> > and invoked in an explicit verb. Nothing more is needed.
> >
> > If a programmer is restricted to the tacit language (why? - I dunno)
> > verbs cannot be first-class. That seems to matter to some people. I
> > was trying to give them something. I don't love the proposal either,
> > but it seems pretty harmless.
> >
> > Any dangerous verb that attempts to return a non-noun is going to be
> > crash-prone. What would DV"0 (6 6)$'+' mean? Its result is what type?
> > what shape?
> >
> > I haven't followed the proposals closely. All I know is that having a
> > verb return a non-noun is going to create havoc inside JE.
> >
> > Henry Rich
> >
> > On 1/17/2023 6:42 PM, 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
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
