Bill Lam wrote:
> If a verb can have 4 arguments then it should have 4 ranks.
My suggested [. and ]. do not bring in arguments, they bring
in operands. A tacit expression with a ]. defines a conjunction,
otherwise a tacit expression with a [. defines an adverb.
I brought my suggestion up in this thread because [. and ].
would allow operands to be used much as though they were
arguments. Given that arguments are nominal (names), and
given that operators like & and " can take nominal operands,
then nouns brought in as operands are somewhat in the nature
of extra arguments. Any consideration of extra ranks
therefore relates to the adverb or conjunction defined.
Dan Bron wrote:
> I want to write up a longer response, but I am preparing
> for a trip. For now, let me rephrase your suggestion as
> I understand it, for others to comment: ...
Thank you Dan; have a good trip. Your rephrasing displays
an understanding of J far beyond mine. I've never used
$: for example. But your rephrasing encompasses my suggestion,
as far as I can make out.
People like you and Raul are far better equipped than me
to define this facility to be maximally useful. My outlook,
when I first brought the matter up years ago, was wanting
to make tacit J easier for students to understand.
Therefore my concern is that "simple" tasks can be simply
expressed, and the simpler tasks will be those of verbal
operands. However, I would hope/imagine that [. or ].
would be able to bring nouns in to act normally as operands
to those operations that take nominal operands.
Neville Holmes, P.O. Box 2412, Bakery Hill 3354, Victoria
____________________________________________________________________________________
Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
