I'll just add,
for the adverbs that return verbs, and / is a good example.
The monadic case of u/ uses a dyadic u to insert u into arguments of the
"resulting verb" u/
For dyadic/table case of / it is [x] u/ y, the presence of x that applies the
dyadic case to the u/ resulting verb.
It is noteworthy that perhaps the bivalent / should not have been implemented
this way. dyadic / is equivalent to u"_1 _. Perhaps dyadic / could have been
implemented as ]F.: all along.
The guide to parsing adverbs is that an adverb only looks at its main/only
argument in order to return something. If that something is a verb, then it is
bivalent and needs to react to both calling conventions. In an explicit (or
just using : in tacit) adverb definition, you have the option to define both
valences independently.
On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 05:40:20 p.m. EDT, Raul Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
Adverbs are never dyadic. Nor are they monadic in the sense that verbs
are monadic. (An adverb takes a single left argument, a monadic verb
takes a single right argument.)
If the result of the adverb is a verb (which is the case for built-in
adverbs, and many user defined adverbs), the resulting verb will carry
up to two definitions -- a monadic definition and a dyadic definition.
Which definition gets used depends on how that verb is used. If the
verb is used in a context where it doesn't have a definition, you get
an error.
I hope this makes sense,
--
Raul
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 5:36 PM Raoul Schorer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> When an adverb is executed, it should follow line 3 of the parsing table (
> https://www.jsoftware.com/help/jforc/parsing_and_execution_ii.htm ). But:
>
>
> - How does the interpreter know if it should execute the 'monadic' vs.
> 'dyadic' adverb, e.g. 'infix' or 'table' in the case of '/' ?
> - And how does the interpreter infer the definite resulting
> part-of-speech? Is there a check testing whether the result of the adverb
> application is a procedure, and if so its arity?
>
>
> The documentation states that "In all cases the word replacing the fragment
> has a definite part of speech, and if it is a verb, a definite rank". How
> this is achieved for all cases with an adverb is non-obvious to me...
>
> Thanks!
> Raoul
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
