> different. In particular, m...@.v y is not the same as m...@.(v y) y .
I am still confused; the dictionary says: " m...@.n is a verb defined by the gerundm with an agenda specified byn ;that is, the verb represented by the train selected fromm by the indicesn .Ifn is boxed, the train is parenthesized accordingly. The ca...@.v uses the result of the verbv to perform the selection. " How is m...@.v using the verb (0 1)"_ to (try to) perform the selection? ________________________________ From: Roger Hui <rhui...@shaw.ca> To: Programming forum <programming@jsoftware.com> Sent: Thu, November 19, 2009 11:03:33 AM Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Wrong agenda? 3 : 'm...@.(v n) y' . Unfortunately for tacit fans, it's not tacit. More on the point: it is desirable but not mandatory for the 8 variations of a conjunction to be related m conj n y x m conj n y m conj v y x m conj v y u conj n y x u conj n y u conj v y x u conj v y , just as it is the case that it is desirable but not mandatory for the monad and dyad of a verb be related. I once told Ken that the 8 cases from each conjunction and the 4 cases from each adverb provide such an embarrassment of riches that EVEN HE will need some time to assign meanings to all of them. ----- Original Message ----- From: Thomas Costigliola <tcost...@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:49 Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Wrong agenda? To: Programming forum <programming@jsoftware.com> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Roger Hui <rhui...@shaw.ca> > wrote:> There is no bug. The forms m...@.n and m...@.v are fundamentally > > different. In particular, m...@.v y is not the same as m...@.(v y) > y . > > Is it possible, using the form m...@.v y, that allows a train from > m be > applied to y? > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Dan Bron <j...@bron.us> > > Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:35 > > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Wrong agenda? > > To: Programming forum <programming@jsoftware.com> > > > >> Pepe wrote: > >> > What is wrong with the agenda in the last line? > >> > (-`%)@.((0 1)"_) 1 2 3 4 5 > >> > |rank error > >> > >> Nothing wrong with the expression; the interpreter has a > >> bug. > >> > >> I guess few people use verbal agenda to construct trains, so > >> this hasn't > >> been caught before. Most often agenda is used to select a > >> single verb > >> from the agenda, so agenda expects the verb to return a scalar. > >> > >> I tried a workaround. I boxed the list so that the verb > >> returns a scalar, > >> which should have no effect on the train produced (the box would > >> theoretically just put a pair of parens around the train): > >> > >> (- > >> `%)@.((<0 1)"_) 1 2 3 4 5 > >> |length error > >> | (-`%)@.((<0 1)"_)1 2 3 > >> 4 5 > >> > >> > >> but no joy. > >> > >> -Dan > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message --------------- > >> > >> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Wrong agenda? > >> From: Don Guinn <dongu...@gmail.com> > >> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:47:05 -0700 > >> To: Programming forum > >> <programming@jsoftware.com> > >> Added parens to make the rank apply to the entire expression. > >> > >> ((-`%)@.((0 1))"_) 1 2 3 4 5 > >> 0 1.5 2.66667 3.75 4.8 > >> > >> Is this what you wanted? > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Jose Mario Quintana < > >> josemarioquint...@2bestsystems.com> wrote: > >> > >> > What is wrong with the agenda in the last line? > >> > > >> > (- %) 1 2 3 4 5 > >> > 0 1.5 2.66666667 3.75 4.8 > >> > > >> > (-`%)@.(0 1) 1 2 3 4 5 > >> > 0 1.5 2.66666667 3.75 4.8 > >> > > >> > (-`%)@.((0 1)"_) 1 2 3 4 5 > >> > |rank error > >> > | (-`%)@.((0 1)"_)1 2 3 4 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
