My definition of Simple J is more restricted and potentially makes the
challenge greater: Simple J uses trains and rank but no other conjunction.
On 11/14/2011 12:59 PM, Dan Bron wrote:
> How about a more difficult challenge? It's related. No embargo period on
> this one.
>
> Write a 13 : '' for "Simple J". In particular, write an adverb which, given
> an anonymous tacit verb as an argument, derives a functionally identical verb
> (in terms of I/O), but all instances of f@:g are replaced with [: f g .
> Obviously f and g here are arbitrary (could be named or anonymous, primitive
> or compound, vanilla or parenthesized), and there can be more than one use of
> @: in the target, and you could have uses within uses.
>
> It would be quite interesting to me if this were presented as a tree
> transformation using L: S: {:: and friends against the atomic representation
> of the target. That's not a requirement though - you could always do string
> transformations on the linear rep, rearrangements on the boxed rep, etc.
>
> If this was in any way generalized, in sense that I could reuse it for
> different but similar transformations, that would be more interesting still.
>
> -Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Raul Miller
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 1:25 PM
> To: Programming forum
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] table challenge in simple J
>
> You are correct.
>
> Nevertheless, that kind of restriction probably belongs in the subject line.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
