Perhaps, but as I explained below, that was not my experience. I imagine we all have our own paths to "the light"!! ;-)
> From: Roger Hui > > The question was from a beginner. Chances are, > f@:g would be more amenable for a beginner than > [: f g. (There is a f jot g composition in conventional > mathematics.) > > From: "Sherlock, Ric" > > > > From: bill lam > > > > > > ĵaŭ, 04 Feb 2010, Sherlock Ric skribis: > > > > > From: Roger Hui > > > > > > > > > > If you prefer to define a function > > > > > using compositions (i.e. "tacitly"), then: > > > > > > > > > > f1=: % @: (+/) @: % > > > > > > > > > > is better. > > > > > > > > Note an alternative form of the above (using forks) is: > > > > f1a=: [: % [: +/ % > > > > > > > > I know that I found that form easier to grasp when I was > > first coming > > > to grip with tacit. > > > > > > I prefer using @ or @: without spaces in between for short > > phrases, so > > > that it forms a compound word like %@:(+/)@:% that > > is easily > > > recognized in a sentence. > > > > That is my preferred usage now too and for the same reason. > > > > However I remember that I used to find that using primitives (@: > > @ & &.) etc hard to reconcile with the concept of forks and > > hooks. I preferred using Cap ( [: ) until I was comfortable with > > which symbols were conjunctions, adverbs and verbs and how they > > combined to form compound verbs. Cap seemed more straight > > forward and I made fewer errors. For example I used to get very > > confused about when it was necessary to enclose the expression > > to the right of @ or @: in parentheses. I think it was one of > > Raul's posts that got that sorted for me. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
