Easily replaced?
(+/ @: *) ` ($: <:)
+----------------+-----------+
|+--+-----------+|+-+-------+|
||@:|+-------+-+|||2|+--+--+||
|| ||+-+---+|*|||| ||$:|<:|||
|| |||/|+-+|| |||| |+--+--+||
|| ||| ||+||| |||+-+-------+|
|| ||| |+-+|| ||| |
|| ||+-+---+| ||| |
|| |+-------+-+|| |
|+--+-----------+| |
+----------------+-----------+
Henry Rich
On 2/20/2012 9:39 AM, Don Guinn wrote:
> Perhaps I was just being a little picky in the distinction. But the
> distinction between adverbs and conjunctions is important. It is similar to
> the distinction between monadic and dyadic verbs.
>
> Sometimes I wonder what J would look like if verbs were not ambivalent. It
> could avoid some confusion for newbies, but would require more primitives.
> Difficult enough having to stick . and : after ASCII characters to build
> primitives because there are not enough ASCII characters to go around.
>
> Tie (`) is not really necessary as it is easily replaced.
> (;:'+ -') -: (+`-)
> 1
> But it makes for neat expressions.
> (+`-)/1 2 3
> 0
> (;:+ -)/1 2 3
> |rank error
> | (;:+-)/1 2 3
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Linda Alvord<[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Don said "Tie is not an adverb. It is a conjunction." I did not mean to
>> disparage tie but indicate that it is not necessary for table. I also
>> meant that t5 was "just a simple adverb".
>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
