Remember that the primary usage of the "training wheels" vocabulary is to help newbies find what a specific symbol does. Newbies will not have a clue about monadic or dyadic, verbs, nouns, etc. A one-page vocabulary is probably the way to go, since that makes it fairly easy for the novice to find the symbol that they want to know about. Even if there was no order on the page, scanning the page would eventually spot the symbol they were looking for.
The main issue is how to arrange the symbols on the vocabulary page. Ideally, there would be some placement method that would help the newbie find a specific symbol faster than if the symbols were randomly placed. The newbie will have no clue whether a specific symbol is a noun, a verb, etc., so organizing symbols by the parts of speech would be useless. The best way to arrange the vocabulary would be some order that the newbie can recognize. Since practically no one remembers the ASCII sequence for the non-alpha characters such as # % ^ & *, etc. that probably isn''t a particularly good choice. I'm not sure that the current vocabulary layout isn't a pretty good method, since it is fairly easy for a newbie to spot the plan - first the symbol, then the symbol with a period, then with a colon. Nor all symbols follow this convention, but that scheme organizes a good portion of the list. One argument for matching the current vocabulary layout, is that as the newbie is weaned off of the training wheels, the positioning of the symbols in the terse vocabulary version would remain the same, thus simplifying the transition off of the training wheels. Skip Cave Sherlock, Ric wrote: >> From: PackRat >> >> Fraser Jackson wrote: >> >>> Ric has posted a modification of Devon's Vocab page. If the >>> objective is to have something clearer to the beginner, then the >>> page needs complete consistency and some additional guides as to its >>> structure. >>> > > I agree that the page needs to be consistent and that some additional > explanatory information will be needed, however I think the page should as > clean as possible so that it fulfils its main function as an index to > explanations of the various primitives. > > >> As a J neophyte, two suggestions come to mind for this project based on >> my experience thus far: >> >> (1) put groupings of verb, adverb, and conjunction primitives on >> SEPARATE pages because each part of speech performs a different >> function >> >> (2) put the monadic and dyadic treatments (definitions and examples) of >> each primitive on two SEPARATE pages >> >> Regarding the first item above, this is NOT to say that there can't >> also be a "master index" page that contains everything, like the >> current "Vocabulary" page. >> > > My suggestion is that we concentrate on the "master index" page and > individual primitive pages to start off with. The separating the parts of > speech on to different pages isn't very helpful to the J newbie who just > wants to know what a particular primitive does and doesn't understand the > significance of parts of speech in J yet. The other groupings can be added > later as alternate index pages as suggested by Devon & Dan. > > Dan wrote: > >> I think having all these closely related functions >> (@@: &&: &.&.:) on a single page would be more >> helpful than separating them, as their distinctions >> are a common stumbling block. We might also have a >> general page on function composition that contrasts >> not just the different flavors of each type of composition, >> but the different types of composition >> themselves (@ vs & vs &.). >> > > I agree that the discussing these distinctions would be very useful, however > I think that the discussions should exist in addition to the individual > pages. The individual pages would describe the particular primitive and could > link to (or <<Include()>>) a page that contains the discussion you describe. > > >> The second item above would be helpful because the J dictionary >> currently treats primitives as language homographs (look the same but >> have different meanings), having all meanings combined on the same >> entry. Some dictionaries actually separate homographs into separate >> entries (sometimes numerically superscripted or subscripted). Though >> the monadic and dyadic forms of a primitive may be similar or related, >> they are still TWO DIFFERENT THINGS and ought to be separated, just as >> inflected primitives are separated from each other. (In other words, >> "verb y" has a different meaning from "x verb y", just as "verb" and >> "verb." and "verb:" have different meanings from each other, though >> often related.) I realize longtimers are used to this, but, for >> beginners, the current situation adds unnecessary confusion. It's >> "overloading", which is often frowned upon when it comes to clarity. >> > > Often the beginner might not correctly identify (or even realise the > distinction between) the monadic & dyadic use of a primitive so I agree with > Raul (and the DoJ) that the separate monadic & dyadic definitions belong on > the same page. Given that the symbol overloading isn't going to change (thank > goodness!), I think that having the different meanings of a primitive > together will actually help mitigate any confusion caused by it. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
