> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Sherlock, Ric wrote:
>
> My solution so far is to create an adverb:
> myverb=: 1 : '(m > $ ?...@$ 0:)`(] ,: nextletter)}'
> 0.2 myverb 'aaaa'
>abaa
>
Can the adverb definition above be called tacit?
Although it doesn't mention the x or y arguments, isn't "m" an explicit
reference to an argument? (Also the definition uses the Explicit conjunction!!)
Is it possible to define a "pure" tacit version of the above adverb?
By "pure" I meanFor instance
topowerA=: ^& NB. "pure"
topowerB=: 1 : '^&m' NB. not "pure"?
Jose has recently shown a couple of versions of a conjunction "while", for
example:
u while v
0&({::)@:((((u (0 {:: ])) ; >:@(_1 {:: ]))^:(v (0 {:: ]))^:_) (0 ;~ ]))
Is it possible to define "while" without using the Explicit conjunction?
How would you describe "u" and "v" in the definition below?
while=: 2 : 0
0&({::)@:((((u (0 {:: ])) ; >:@(_1 {:: ]))^:(v (0 {:: ]))^:_) (0 ;~ ]))
)
Explicit references to the conjunction's verb arguments?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
