thanks for the info on `'' Having a version for nouns would not be useless. You are right though that passing the variable as a string to a function that knows what to do with it is easy enough.
Another option is letting this hook be meaningful: (=. f) y <---> ". 'y =. (f y)' which I guess a one line conjunction could do instead, and not be that wordy to call... will play with that a bit. regarding nested definitions, Its convenient. Keep small related classes and their descendants in the same file. Have a step in between anonymous functions and locale-wide definition. Cases where its not important enough to name outside of a narrow scope, but still will be used more than once. > > This could hopefully let us define multiple > classes > > inside general files, as well as private explicit > > verbs only useful in narrow scopes. > > Of course, both are already possible. Much like `'' I don't know about it. You can define multiple classes in 1 file? with non class related functions too? --- "Miller, Raul D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You have this for verbs: > > ref=: `'' > a=+/%# > a ref > > Doing this for nouns would essentially mean that > nouns are just > another flavor of verb (one that takes no > arguments). One problem > with this approach is that a combination of nouns > and verbs would > form a train rather than causing the verbs to be > executed. On the > one hand, this would solve an earlier problem (where > irrational > results are not represented exactly), on the other > hand you'd have to > do something like fix each such train before you > could see the result. > > Of course, other possible implementation strategies > are possible... > but one of them is already implemented: quote the > names you want to > serve as references. > > > I guess it can be defined now without language > support > > as long as you are willing to call it with > variables > > inside quotes. > > Yes. > > And the `'' method seems to work just fine for > verbs. > > > An unrelated seemingly small touch that could be > > helpful is letting the explicit define process > handle > > nested definitions by having a definenested enum. > > myverb=: monad definenested NB. 3 : 1 > > myprivateverb=. 3 : 0 > > > > ) > >)) > > Hmm... I've been thinking about such things too, but > have yet to come > up with what I think is a significant reason to use > them. > > > This could hopefully let us define multiple > classes > > inside general files, as well as private explicit > > verbs only useful in narrow scopes. > > Of course, both are already possible. > > -- > Raul > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
