I wrote: > I found an example where this specification was not honored, and > wanted to know why, or what I was missing when reading the DoJ. [1]
Raul responded: > I am not aware of this example. The example I provided in my original post demonstrates the discrepancy only under my assumptions. In particular, my code demonstrates the discrepancy only assuming that "proverb" is defined as "a [mutable, non-primitive] name that refers to a verb", and specifically doesn't demonstate it using your proposal that "proverb" is defined as "a [mutable, non-primitive] name that doesn't refer to a noun" (which isn't surprising, given that you defined it that way to avoid the discrepancy). Let me put it more concisely. If "proverb" meant exactly "a [mutable, non-primitive] name that refers to a verb" [1] and only that, would you agree there would be a discrepancy between the specification (J) and the implementation (j)? If not, then please describe why. That is precisely the information I am seeking (i.e., the reason I asked the question in the first place). If so, then I need to do that research & cogitation I mentioned to determine if mine is the (only reasonable) definition of "proverb" (given the text of the DoJ and no supplementary material). [2] I wrote: > Victor and Raul's responses corroborated my own observation > that all names, regardless of nameclass, are resolved when executed, but not > before (in particular, not as they're stacked). Raul responded: > Except, of course, that nouns are executed when they are stacked. > They need no parameters -- they just need a context where > their value is relevant. For the sake of rule minimization (consistent brevity), I am treating nouns like other nameclasses -- executed when provided the right number of arguments -- in this case, zero. I kind of like the nameclasses hierachy this introduces. Perhaps this is equivalent to having an "implicit" production rule that N stacks N ? Anyway, this detail isn't relevant to the current discussion. -Dan [1] The "[mutable, non-primitive]" part is an attempt to restrict our discussion to user-defined names -- it may not be precise. Let's not quibble about that part (though it would be an interesting discussion in itself). [2] If do arrive at that conclusion, I will post my reasoning for the consideration of the Forum and the maintainer of the DoJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
