I just returned from a vacation in the Riviera Maya; hence the long delay in my response.
>mine, unless you're referring to [3], which was a followup to my post. Yes, my mistake, somehow I managed to miss your strand posts and I did not give you credit. Having said that, although I like to give credit when I can, I think it is becoming more and more difficult to do so properly because of recurrent themes and the number of contributors. We might never know for sure who announced first what, because apparently the early history of the forum is lost. Granted, I think it is unlikely that a strand implementation predated yours which, by the way, it is a very nice example of the usefulness of an indirectly recursive adverb (S) that returns an adverb (or ultimately a list). Incidentally, have you considered using the empty string (‘’) as a marker since it is a neutral element under append. >> I still do not see how a conjunction could be constructed tacitly. > >It may not be possible. But J has some back doors that Roger forgets to >lock sometimes. Of course, once I walk in and announce myself, he'll >brick them up in the next version. I know, I once mentioned to him that is was actually possible for an adverb to take another adverb or a conjunction as an argument and puff! It was gone. According to Game Theory one should mislead once in a while and state that something is possible when it is likely not but that would not be nice, one could also say that something may or “may not be possible” when it actually is, or we could just start a very exclusive underground J club ;) ________________________________ From: Dan Bron <[email protected]> To: Programming forum <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, November 23, 2009 7:37:41 PM Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Wrong agenda? Pepe wrote: > an adverb can return a conjunction (e.g., (<'@') `:6 ) Ah, this is a much more direct example than my 'conj'~ . Thanks, I'll use it in the future. > I still do not see how a conjunction could be constructed tacitly. It may not be possible. But J has some back doors that Roger forgets to lock sometimes. Of course, once I walk in and announce myself, he'll brick them up in the next version. > You could also pass them indirectly as (their) atomic > representations ... into a gerund to be processed by an adverb > ... via a tacit verb that can ... generate another atomic > representation of any arbitrary complex tacit adverb > to be evoked in the last step. Yes, this is the heart of adverbial programming. Once you have some utility adverbs to coerce arguments into the proper format (like my pet (`'') ), the rest is normal tacit verb programming. Of course, I always feel a pang of guilt at this approach and attempt to do as much processing "adverbally" as possible, but I end up resorting to gerund-processing tacit verbs at some point. > a la Oleg's strand notation implementation, [which] > relied on a global noun to accumulate the elements but, > I think, this might be avoided by embedding the > accumulation in the resulting adverb at each step Do you have a pointer to Oleg's implementation? All I'm aware of is my own, described/announced at [1] and implemented at [2], as an (explicit) conjunction that accumulated state in its right-hand argument, n . This avoided the need for globals et al (it also has some fancy, if unneccesary, embellishments). But I expect Oleg's implementation predated mine, unless you're referring to [3], which was a followup to my post. -Dan [1] http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-July/015565.html [2] http://www.jsoftware.com/svn/DanBron/trunk/environment/strand.ijs [3] http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-October/016648.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
