On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:18 AM, neville holmes<[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Well.. To be fair, this will be different from $. t= $. t is a verb -- albeit, a verb without a domain. This means that the cost of implementation would be significant. If he were to implement this, I think Roger would have to introduce up to six new classes of parsing tokens. Here is a list of them with some not particularly good examples: pseudo verbs that will be come adverbs + [. * pseudo adverbs that will become adverbs (+ [. *) " pseudo nouns that will become adverbs (+ [. *) 0 pseudo verbs that will become conjunctions + ]. * pseudo adverbs that will become conjunctions (+ ]. *) " pseudo nouns that will become conjunctions (+ ]. *) 0 I do not think we can have tacitly defined conjunctions or I would also have to worry about some other possibilities. It's also possible that some of these cases would be arbitrarily ruled "illegal" (to make the implementation easier). Before I can even begin to think about what all this means, I would want to come up with a variety of useful or at least plausible examples of each. But it seems to me that implementing this mechanism would involve quite a bit of work, and would have non-obvious implications, both for the user and for the implementation. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
