Hi, Graham, You wrote:
> So scripts are an important > departure from the APL workspace, which APLers should be interested in. I agree that this would be a good thing for Devon to have on his agenda. > Tacit definition is so intriguing I cannot leave it alone. The trouble is, > with my background, I would be much more productive if I never used it. But > I want to become adept at it. I realise there is a world there of concise > expression that I want to embrace. I also find tacit programming very attractive. I suspect you'll not find that your productivity continues to suffer from using it. Recently I broke out a verb, frame, to help make it easier to read. Mind you, this verb is on the clumsy side as J code goes, so I'm not advising that you emulate my work. Here I just want to note that my current compositional technique now involves interleaving explicit and tacit J. The advantages of verb trains are great, and so are the conveniences of explicit constructions. I find it rewarding to work flexibly with both in the same definition. If you want to see what that looks like, it's here: http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/TracyHarms/BowlingScore Henry's (all tacit) alternative is also there. (It's much nicer.) I'm convinced that at the high end of skill both tacit and explicit forms are readily used, and freely conjoined, according to their respective strengths. It's definitely possible to get a lot of the advantages of tacit by applying it at a small scale while writing mainly explicit definitions. Tracy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
