On Dec 26, 2007 5:16 AM, neville holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would be very interested to know what those internal > conflicts were. I think you, Raul, tried to explain them to me > in this forum once before, but I seem to remember merely > being bewildered.
Basically non-trivial tacit functions do not simply define one function, they define many functions. For example, let's take the classic: +/%# This simple sequence of four characters includes two different tacit functions. First you define sum, and then you define average. Picking an example at random, trjoin=: ":&.>@] ;@}:@,@,. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here, the tacitly defined functions are [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;@}: ;@}:@, ;@}:@,@,. ":&.> ":&.>@] and, of course, the fork which combines the first, fourth and sixth verbs from my list. That said, note that adverbs are also functions, but we did not actually tacitly define any adverbs in the above. Now... it occurs to me that perhaps you mean for [. and ]. to follow the pattern set by $. -- I do not remember if we discussed this or not. If this was your meaning, you could have [. and ]. be analogous to [ and ] but finding the left and right arguments to the largest containing function (instead of the left and right arguments of the current function). Was this what you meant? (I have this vague memory of asking you this before, but I could be wrong.) Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
