On 6/18/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks Raul, I was looking for something like that but unable
to come up with a solution. Indeed, I'm still a bit mystified why
your expression is dignified to work whereas my first attempt
with 1 : 'x. , m. , y.' only draws a "valence error".
Since you reference x. and y., J's explicit interpreter wants
to be involved in the execution of the verb. But for a dyad,
you need a ':' line.
Since I did not reference x. or y., J's explicit interpreter
produced a verb and got out of the way.
This should be visible upon inspection of a sample
result verb:
99(1 :(':';'x., m., y.'))
99(1 :', m.&,')
The only working "truly tacit" (i.e., without 1 : ) adverb definition
I could come up with so far looks a bit atrocious:
dc =. (]:&,@]) ,~ [
That seems to be a generic property of tacit adverbs and
conjunctions (and I think this has something to do with
why conjunction forks were withdrawn).
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
