I did not refer to the parsing but to the execution of the fork. The side effect is in the sense that, in a typical context, the behavior of [: u v is equivalent to [ u@:] v (or [ u...@] v if you prefer). For example, before the introduction of [: no verb w "affected the valence of u" during the execution of a dyadic fork w u v, as far as I know.
________________________________ From: Raul Miller <[email protected]> To: Programming forum <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 2:56:29 PM Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Third argument On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Jose Mario Quintana<[email protected]> wrote: > ... if I am not mistaken, the introduction of Cap involved a > modification of the previous execution of a fork to allow a > specific verb ([:) to have a side effect, as an adverb, on the > middle verb of a fork. I think you are mistaken. Consider [: % *: Before the introduction of cap's special treatment during parsing, the TRIDENT parsing handler would have formed a fork from these three verbs. [: has no side effect -- in fact it never does anything -- and in this context, it is nothing but information. Also, no J adverbs are involved here (except in analogies). -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
