Raul Miller wrote:
>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?
Isn't this a problem anyway ? (Even if avg2 is
ignored.) I seem to remember that if f or g aren't
defined then the J interpreter assumes they are verbs.
> ? 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 ].
Isn't it just
? (1: + (2: * (3: - (4: % ([. ^ 6:)))))
(or is it the other way around ?) whether [.
is there or 5: instead ?
If you're worried about [. bringing in a noun
then you can require [. only to be used as an
operand, and then something like [."_ can be
used in a train.
> 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 [:
You've lost me there. Sorry. Perhaps you are
saying that operations defined with [. or ]. should
not be nested ?
> That said, Neville has made lots of suggestions,
> and some of my above examples would not be allowed
> with some of his suggestions.
I thought I'd only suggested [. and ]. to be used
to bring in operands, with the suggestion (as above)
that they could be required to be only used as
operands. Have I forgotten something ?
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
