If you are right about this, and I think you are, then the prospects for Neville's [. and ]. look even bleaker.
________________________________ From: Raul Miller <[email protected]> To: Programming forum <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2009 12:16:48 PM Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Third argument On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Jose Mario Quintana<[email protected]> wrote: > Would a similar approach work to implement > Neville's ideas? I do not think so. Consider: avg1=: +/ % # avg2=: [. % ]. avg3=: f % g if avg1 is a verb, and if avg2 would be a conjunction, what would avg3 be, and how could you tell? Next, consider: 1: + 2: * 3: - 4: % [. ^ 6: If this train is an adverb, the top level fork which has + for its middle tine must be treated differently than if the train were a verb. But neither of its other "verbs" are [. nor ]. But let us say the following are illegal: f=: [. g=: ]. This could avoid both of the above difficulties -- unless we insisted on using the mechanism which is used to handle [: That said, Neville has made lots of suggestions, and some of my above examples would not be allowed with some of his suggestions. -- 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
