Dan Bron wrote: > > Thanks Raul & Victor. I agree with the assesment that names don't get > resolved until they're executed (that is, given the correct > number of arguments). > Thank you Dan for posing this interesting problem.
To me the real question that follows from such an explanation is: when does the name get executed? Since I lately increasingly tend to think of/in J in terms of functional programming, where there is no execution, it seems that the execution is a bit more involved in defining J than I see it necessary to achieve what J gets done. > As you [Raul] pointed out, that explains the behavior I questioned. At > first blush, the solution niggled me because pronouns don't have > to wait for execution to produce their value. But, of course, [pro]nouns > take 0 arguments, so mentioning them also fully > parameterizes them, resulting in execution and stacking by value. > Ditto. > Now, the harder question: Does the Dictionary predict this behavior (not > resolving names until they're executed), and if so, > where? If not, can we defend the behavior using the text of the DoJ? Put > another way, does the DoJ prescribe this > implementation, or at at least not proscribe it? > It all depends on how precisely you want to define the language. To me it seems at the present that one rule of J, at the very best, is still implicit -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Stacking-by-name-tp24918138s24193p24980576.html Sent from the J Programming mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
