J used to have stuff like that (the Tacit Language I referred to). x (A V) was defined as (x A) V (an adverb), producing a hook.
That was never really necessary since ` and `: could produce the same result. Your suggestion, which would produce a verb, is very interesting. It wouldn't be like any train we have now, because you would be executing the verb on x/y, then executing the adverb, then executing the resulting verb again. But I don't see why it wouldn't work, and it would solve the longstanding problem of how to pass x and y into conjunctions. It would take a great deal of thought to decide that this is a good idea, though. Henry Rich On 11/20/2010 5:46 PM, Viktor Cerovski wrote: > > > Henry Rich wrote: >> >> I can't find a way to produce u " (v y) y with the tacit language. >> >> Henry Rich. >> > It seems to me that this is impossible in the current definition of J, > and I'm not familiar with the "long gone features" of which Jose speaks > so I don't know whether they would have solved the problem tacitly. > > There is, however, an elegant solution if we extend J by > defining the Adverb/Verb bident to produce a verb as follows: > > monadic: (Adv Verb) y<-> (( Verb y) Adv) y > > dyadic: x (Adv Verb) y<-> x ((x Verb y) Adv) y > > Then, in the above example we'd have: > > x u"(x v y) y === x ((u") v) y > u"(v x) x === ((u") v) x > > i.e the tacit solution would have been just ((u ") v) . > > This would have similar applications to all adverbs/conjuctions > that take one noun argument, such as: > } " ` `:& ^: @. ~ !. !: : d. D: L: S: t. t: > > > >> On 11/18/2010 10:22 AM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: >>> Although I have no doubt that Roger is fully aware of the Master’s advice >>> "It is very important, very important to listen to your customers. It is >>> even more important to disregard what they say and do the right thing" he >>> appreciates some comments and suggestions from users, yours included, as >>> threads of this forum testify. >>> >>> I would certainly prefer, for instance, "using GPUs as numeric >>> coprocessors" but I do not think the efforts involved are comparable and >>> one should take into account the bang for the buck. Yet, for me the rank >>> definition issue is admittedly a matter of aesthetics akin to removing a >>> small eyesore from a beautiful landscape. After all, from a practical >>> perspective, one can easily code a conjunction having the proposed >>> behavior without the need to change anything: >>> >>> rank=. 2 : 0 >>> u " (v y) y >>> : >>> x u " (x v y) y >>> ) >>> >>> Incidentally, how could you write (rank) above tacitly using the long >>> gone tacit facilities (I was never close to be fluent because there were >>> too many combinations for me to remember)? >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: [email protected] >>> [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Henry Rich >>> [[email protected]] >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:30 PM >>> To: Programming forum >>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Atop u...@v with v of negative monadic rank >>> >>> I think Roger has the best view& so I would like him to do what he >>> thinks is right. Fortunately, that's what's gonna happen no matter what >>> we say here. >>> >>> >>> >>> But I am interested in things like: >>> >>> Support for semiduals (like&.: but applying v to only one operand and >>> the result) >>> >>> Using multiple cores effectively in a single J program >>> >>> Using GPUs as numeric coprocessors >>> >>> Taking advantage of SSE3 instruction set >>> >>> Hand-coding +/ . * using SSE3 to get the ultimate perf in matrix >>> multiply (I have offered to code the inner loops for this) >>> >>> perf improvements in ;@:(f&.>) >>> >>> A primitive like -: that checks the type of empties >>> >>> >>> ...and, I'd like to get the tacit language back, just as a monument to >>> Ken's brilliance. >>> >>> Henry Rich >>> >>> >>> On 11/17/2010 7:58 PM, Dan Bron wrote: >>>> Obvious follow-up question: what would you like to spend it on? >>>> >>>> -Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> Please excuse typos; composed on a handheld device. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Henry Rich<[email protected]> >>>> Sender: [email protected] >>>> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:46:49 >>>> To: Programming forum<[email protected]> >>>> Reply-To: Programming forum<[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Atop u...@v with v of negative monadic rank >>>> >>>> Reality check: the most precious commodity in the community of J users >>>> is Roger's time. Is this what you want it spent on? >>>> >>>> Not me. >>>> >>>> Henry Rich >>>> >>>> On 11/17/2010 5:25 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: >>>>> I just want to add my name to the list of those who would support the >>>>> interpretation change of (f " g) to >>>>> >>>>> f " g y<-> f "( g y) y ( and x f " g y<-> x f " (x g y) y ) >>>>> >>>>> from the rarely used (or useless, depending on your point of view) >>>>> current definition. >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
