Thanks, Raul and Don. >>> If adverbs and conjunctions combine verbs into new verbs, then those >>> new verbs logically come into existence at definition time, not >>> run-time. Hence the conjunction has to be expanded at definition time: >>> you can't avoid it.
I tried rephrasing this in several ways, and decided to post it in the above oversimplified form because I thought I might learn something. (I have.) > Now... you could argue that once that investigation has happened, the > definition which was inspected should be discarded, and the name which > was used to find the definition should be retained in its place. But > I think we can at least agree that this would be a change in how the > language works... Not asking for that. Not now I understand it better. Let me just say: from being just a passing irritant, this topic grows in importance to a spotlight on how adverbs and conjunctions work, and should be understood and used. ...For me, at least. I wonder if does so for other beginners? On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > You are talking about two different things here, I think. > > An evaluation step has to happen (which involves resolving what the > name of the conjunction refers to) before the interpreter can see > whether it contains both an x or a y and a m, n, u or v. > > Now... you could argue that once that investigation has happened, the > definition which was inspected should be discarded, and the name which > was used to find the definition should be retained in its place. But > I think we can at least agree that this would be a change in how the > language works: > > f1_ex_=:1 :'start u y' > f2_ex_=:1 :'start u ]' > start=: 10 > start_ex_=: 100 > + f1_ex_ 1000 > 1010 > + f2_ex_ 1000 > 1100 > > -- > Raul > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote: >> Not necessarily. The definition is completed when all arguments are >> supplied. If the definition of an adverb or conjunction contains x or y the >> definition is delayed until those arguments are supplied. >> >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Ian Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>Anyways, adverbs and conjunctions are evaluated when building tacit >>> >>verbs, so J cannot defer their name resolution until later unless you >>> >>embed them in an explicit verb. >>> > >>> > Thanks, Raul -- I guess that perfectly describes the situation I've >>> > run up against. :) >>> > Plus the remedy, which is the one I've resorted to. :/ >>> > But IMO that's like Molière: Q: Why does morphine make you sleep?... >>> >>> Sorry Raul, I entirely missed the point, didn't I? ... >>> >>> If adverbs and conjunctions combine verbs into new verbs, then those >>> new verbs logically come into existence at definition time, not >>> run-time. Hence the conjunction has to be expanded at definition time: >>> you can't avoid it. >>> >>> Very taken-up right now with clearly explaining J concepts to novices. >>> Seems I needed this one explaining to myself: I was implicitly viewing >>> a conjunction as a kind of super-verb taking extended arguments. >>> >>> Definitely an APL mindset there >>> . >>> >>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
