On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Linda Alvord <[email protected]> wrote: > Your solution assumes that you knew what the author was thinking. I guess > you have to solve the total problem yourself and hope you get a simpler > solution.
Yes, if I am going to be creating meaningful names this requires that I understand the relevant meanings. But we can create explicit definitions without meaningful names -- the only thing we need to know, for that, is the basic grammar involved (in other words: is the definition used as a monadic verb or a dyadic verb or both?). That said, if I was building a program to convert a tacit verb to an explicit verb, I would not be using the trace facility. That would be too much work for me. Instead, I would start from the atomic representation of the tacit verb. And I would be giving special treatment to boxed sequences beginning with a box that matches e.&(<;._1'/2/3'), working from the outside in. And the hardest part of this problem would be name management. And even that part would not be too hard, since I can use arbitrary names. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
