Thanks Jose, That clarifies my own thoughts. Regarding the tacit definition of conjunctions (and adverbs), I think I'm mainly curious, rather than really motivated to do this myself. Having said that, I think I'd have said the same thing about tacit definition of verbs if you'd asked me 2 years ago!
Ric > From: Jose Mario Quintana > > Since it does not mention any arguments I would say that it is > functional in the sense of functional programming but I would not call > tacit a definition based on the explicit conjunction (as opposed to the > “pure” tacit version that you found afterwards). > As far as I can see, J no longer provides the means to define > conjunctions tacitly; however, one can replace a conjunction with an > adverb operating on a gerund and we can now go a very long way defining > tacit adverbs employing @. with boxed agendas (there are certain > limitations for reasons that I do not yet understand but that is > another subject). See > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009- > October/016726.html for a simple example of this workaround. > > From: "Sherlock, Ric" > > > 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
