Thanks for the responses to my query. I’ll work my way through
the suggestions.
As always, I learn something. Subtle are the ways of wizards!
> On Aug 12, 2023, at 16:02, 'Nollaig MacKenzie' via Chat
> wrote:
>
> numtt=: 3 : '((,~ 0:) + (, 0:)) ^: (2^y) 1’
>
> calculates, for the possible
Ah, I understand--you thought I meant it to be an analogue to the n argument
to explicit conjunctions.
n: is syntactically an adverb, but with the special property that x u n: C v y
is x (x u y) C v y, etc. (In much the same way as [: is syntactically a verb,
but has other special
My thought was that this would take on special meaning when used in an
adverb or conjunction argument, taking effect in the context of the
either the smallest or largest such anonymous derived verb (slightly
analogous to how $: takes arguments, but in either case ignoring
containing hooks and/or
The 'n' is for 'now', but it was a placeholder name anyway. Why 'Y:'?
On Sun, 13 Aug 2023, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 1:55 AM Elijah Stone wrote:
I will note that, with my proposed n:, this would be trivial: (0&, + ,&0)^:(2&^
n:)@1
I'm not sure I remember your proposal,
2&^ (,~ + ,)&0 1:
Previous-generation interpreters allowed (illicitly) one to produce
automatically tacit verbs equivalent to explicit one-liner verbs of this
kind; alas, this is no longer possible because current-generation
interpreters do not allow verbs to produce verbs (or rather it is a lot
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 1:55 AM Elijah Stone wrote:
> I will note that, with my proposed n:, this would be trivial: (0&, +
> ,&0)^:(2&^ n:)@1
I'm not sure I remember your proposal, but I imagine that Y: would be
a better name (for what I think this would be doing) than n:
(If x: was not
