I don't think m. triggered explicit. The rule was, you had implicit if (0) there was x./y. without u./m. : this was the legacy mode; OR (1) there was no x./y.
You got explicit if there was x./y. and u./m. The stringiness and the position to the right of 1 : are not significant. (1 : 'string') is EXECUTED as the : conjunction, to produce an adverb (which contains the string as text waiting to be interpreted). Then, m (1 : 'string') is executed to produce whatever it produces. If it produces implicit, the result of that second execution is the implicit verb. If it produces explicit, the result is a compound containing m and the string, which is a verb waiting to be interpreted when it gets its x./y. operands. Henry Rich > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 10:59 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] ;:^:_1!.string > > RM> Since you reference x. and y., J's explicit interpreter wants > RM> to be involved in the execution of the verb. But for a dyad, > RM> you need a ':' line. > RM> Since I did not reference x. or y., J's explicit interpreter > RM> produced a verb and got out of the way. > > But we both referenced m. which triggers "explicit" in my > understanding > of the Dictionary. Also the mere position to the right of "1 :" > and the stringiness signify "needs the explicit interpreter" to me > (reading the DoJ). Therefore I could understand if we both had to > provide the empty monad part but I still do not understand why your > form is blessed with more acceptance. I'll have a look into the > source to see how the x./y. matters. > > MN> The only working "truly tacit" (i.e., without 1 : ) adverb > MN> definition I could come up with so far looks a bit atrocious: > MN> dc =. (]:&,@]) ,~ [ > > RM> That seems to be a generic property of tacit adverbs and > RM> conjunctions (and I think this has something to do with > RM> why conjunction forks were withdrawn). > > In the meantime, I found the much more agreeable tacit definition: > > dc2 =. (,&)@[ , ] > > (In my dim recollection the reason given for the cutting down > on phrasal forms was "too complex to maintain and an obstacle > for providing better debugging facilities".) > > Martin > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
