I believe f @: g and [: f g give the same results. There are syntactic differences because @:
is a conjunction. For example x f @: g y and x ([: f g) y are OK, but x [: f g y gives an error.
For information on forks (f g h) see Section 5 of the Introduction part of the Dictionary and
Section II.F of the Dictionary part (in particular CAPPED FORK in Section II.F). (After F1 for
Help, click on Dic). For information on [: and @: try their Vocabulary entries (after F1 for
Help, click on Voc). (You probably know about F1 etc, but you are talking to a former teacher.)
Kip Murray
Steven Taylor wrote:
So instead of x (* + %@:]) y <-----> x * y + x % y
we get x (* + %@:]) y <-----> x * y + % x ] y
So in a sense, when ] is rightmost it steals the chance to fork, and % is
locked to monad due to the verb verb combination?
BTW:
this was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for...
3 (* + [: % ]) 2
or is it... hmmm... but if % was exectured monadically twice, I would have
expected the answer 7.
3 (* + [: % ] + [: % ]) 2
6.4
Looks like I need more insight into 'context' and 'J parsing'. I can
religiously avoid constructs like this and be content to be a poorer
being/scripter/oo/procedural person. I thought I was on the cusp of fully
understanding verb trains, forks, and hooks..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
