Dan Bron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I found 34 foriegns whose nameclass wasn't verb. In fact, > it turned out > they were all adverbs: > > 0 600 > 1 480 > 2 360 > 3 240 > 4 120 > 5 0 > 5 993 > 5 994 > 6 _120 > 6 873 > 6 874 > 7 _240 > 7 753 > 7 754 > 8 _360 > 8 633 > 8 634 > 9 _480 > 9 513 > 9 514 > 10 393 > 10 394 > 12 153 > 12 154 > 13 33 > 13 34 > 14 _87 > 14 _86 > 15 _207 > 15 _206 > 16 _327 > 16 _326 > 17 _447 > 17 _446
> I thought at first that the arguments to !: might > have to be single bytes, > and the negative numbers might just represent "wraparound" (i.e. > they'reidentical into their complementary positive bytes) but > that's clearly not > the case. Close. It appears that !: is implemented something like: !: =: 2 : 'if. 11=m do. n windowsdriver else. [EMAIL PROTECTED](n+120*m) end.' For example, images of 5!:0 occur at m!:(600-120*m) for all m except 11, from _17895692 to 17895703 (larger values overflow (600-120*m)) (What I find amazing is that it only took about 5 minutes of CPU to exhaustively search the entire range!) Removing duplicates, this reduces the above list to three unique adverbs: > 5 0 > 13 33 > 13 34 Some experimentation yields the following results: P =: 13!:33 [:P NB. This returns 1 for all verbs, including undefined names 1 Q =: 13!:34 f =: 0 Q NB. Domain error for verbs and all m except 0 or 1 f 0!: 4!:0 <'f' NB. Looks like a conjunction, tastes like a verb 3 5!:1<'f' NB. Gerund representation behaves as if !: is an adverb +------------+ |+--+-------+| ||!:|+-----+|| || ||+-+-+||| || |||0|0|||| || ||+-+-+||| || |+-----+|| |+--+-------+| +------------+ g =: ((0 Q)`'')@.0 g NB. Converting to gerund and back changes form !:0 4!:0 <'g' NB. Converted form tastes the way it looks 1 '/' 5 g NB. Converted form behaves the way it looks / > *: I can't think of a reason to "hide" an undocumented > foreign in a > deprecated family, when it can be hidden just as effectively > within its > "natural" (functionally related) family. That is assuming that the hiding is deliberate. Often, code that exists in one version of a program is deprecated, but some stubs still survive unnoticed for many subsequent versions before being finally removed. -- Mark D. Niemiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
