On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Sherlock, Ric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> B) add new optional argument to the deoptim routine enabling the user to
> pass the name of a verb that should be called when reporting progress.
>
> Option B seems the obvious choice to me - retains code modularity and
> provides more future flexibility.
>
> Is this a sensible route to take? Are there other better ways?
Variations on this theme include:
[1] providing an adverb where you can pass this verb directly, rather
than by name.
[2] Pass an optional gerund which represents this verb.
[3] Using a predefined name whose definition can be overridden by
the user.
[4] Using a predefined name which is used relative to the current locale,
and whose definition can be overridden by the user, using J's locale
mechanism.
In other words:
[0] 'name' deopt values
[1] name deopt values
[2] name`'' deopt values
[3]
cannonical=: name
deopt values
[4]
cocurrent 'whatever'
coinsert 'deopt'
cannonical=: name
deopt values
Note that [1] would require a null verb or an alternate interface
when the user doesn't want this feature.
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
