e which did not intend to use the feature but erroneously used
> it), opportunity costs (time that could have been spent on other
> things). To make a decent decision here one has to be aware of both
> the value and the costs of that decision (and someone has to step up
> to cover th
I can verify that that script runs under j807.
I was disappointed with the lack of documentation,
Still, it took me only a few seconds to crash my J session:
( A=. 3 3 $ [: (1&o.) (2&o.) ]sb )
>A
... which, perhaps, has something to do with why this glitch has been
removed from more recen
> Or possibly I made a mistake the last time I tried that exercise, as
> my copy of J crashed.
>
> Without a good specification, it's rather difficult to distinguish
> between machine problems and implementation problems.
>
The attached J Wicked Toolkit.txt works for me...
NB.
---
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 4:23 PM Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> > I believe that it's telling me that combining verbs and nouns at the
> > top level of an array is illegal. If I am wrong about that, I would
> > like to know what the actual issue is.
>
> Does that surprise you?
No, but it was one of
> I believe that it's telling me that combining verbs and nouns at the
> top level of an array is illegal. If I am wrong about that, I would
> like to know what the actual issue is.
Does that surprise you?
( T=. 3 3 $ '.' ; 0 ; 0 ; 0)
┌─┬─┬─┐
│.│0│0│
├─┼─┼─┤
│0│.│0│
├─┼─┼─┤
│0│0│.│
└─┴─┴─┘
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 3:10 PM Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> ( A=. 3 3 $ [: 1&o. (0) (0) (0)]: )
> ┌┬┬┐
> │1&o.│0 │0 │
> ├┼┼┤
> │0 │1&o.│0 │
> ├┼┼┤
> │0 │0 │1&o.│
> └┴┴┘
>
>;A
> |domain error
> | ;A
>
> Enough said?
That is h
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 3:42 PM Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> As I recall it you were asking if was acceptable to use explicit tools for
> this and that in order to produce a tacit version of INTEGRATE. I thought
> we already agreed that j903 tacit tools are weak for attacking tasks just
> above t
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 2:54 PM Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> This is what Jx does which in most cases is what official j8xx
> interpreters do. You could find out what the latter interpreters illegally
> do after running the wicked tacit toolkit holding your nose if necessary.
Possibly,
Or possi
> For example: you had suggested that mixed tacit + explicit would mean
> using tacit for lightweight tasks. That suggestion seems to me to be
> misleading. (Though it's necessarily accurate when all tasks are
> lightweight.)
As I recall it you were asking if was acceptable to use explicit tools f
>A
> ++++
> |1&o.|0 |0 |
> ++++
> |0 |1&o.|0 |
> ++++
> |0 |0 |1&o.|
> ++++
( A=. 3 3 $ [: 1&o. (0) (0) (0)]: )
┌┬┬┐
│1&o.│0 │0 │
├┼┼┤
│0 │1&o.│0 │
├┼┼┤
│0 │0 │1&o.│
└┴┴┘
This is what Jx does which in most cases is what official j8xx
interpreters do. You could find out what the latter interpreters illegally
do after running the wicked tacit toolkit holding your nose if necessary.
[: + */ %/\ ]:
┌─┬──┬───┐
│+│*/│%/\│
└─┴──┴───┘
": [: + */ %/\ ]:
┌─┬──┬───┐
│
You mistake my intent.
My purpose here is not to "justify why I refuse to play the full tacit
game", it's:
(A) to point out significant issues with some of your suggestions
about the character of the mixed tacit + explicit game.
For example: you had suggested that mixed tacit + explicit would me
Oops, trying this out, I messed up in a couple ways with my
implementation of genExample. I should have tested it.
Here's what I had intended to write:
genExample=:{{
r=.i.0
for_j.,y do.
if. (*j)*(j=<.j)*(j>:_12)*j<:12 do.
r=. r,j&o. BV
else.
r=. r, wrote:
>
> You will ha
You will have to forgive me; I cannot parse and execute explicit code to
that degree in my mind and I do not know what you mean. However, I will
make a few comments regarding your following post.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 12:04 PM Raul Miller wrote:
>
> Since perhaps I am being too negative here
> Am I making sense to you?
Playing the full tacit game is not for everybody. You do not need to
justify, with mostly old arguments, why you refuse to play the game. Most
j fans do not play it and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, as
far as I am concerned.
:)
On Wed, Dec 29, 20
Oops, almost forgot, some other cases to consider:
": on a boxed array which contains verbs -- does it respect 9!:3?
3!:1 on a boxed array which contains verbs -- how are verbs represented here?
And, what about the case where the left argument to BV is a gerund
which represents an adverb or conj
Since perhaps I am being too negative here, let me at least the cases
I do not adequately understand here.
Let's say that we have an adverb BV which creates a boxed verb from
its left argument.
The simple case does not seem particularly bothersome:
(> +/BV) 1 2 3
6
But what happens when we pu
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:09 PM Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> > My stance here is that *any* tool set necessarily is limited (aka
> > "weak") outside of a limited range of targets. For example:
> > ...
>
> Yes, I have known for many years that you feel very constricted when you
> are asked to use o
> My stance here is that *any* tool set necessarily is limited (aka
> "weak") outside of a limited range of targets. For example:
> ...
Yes, I have known for many years that you feel very constricted when you
are asked to use only tacit tools when entertaining a nontrivial
programming exercise. T
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 3:20 PM Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> The subject of the post is tacit completeness and I said from the start
> that for most users it makes a little difference, if any, if the current
> tacit adverbial/conjunctional facilities are weak or not. Suggesting the
> use of expli
> > > > It keeps tacit adverbial and conjunctional programming weak.
> > > Refusing to use available tools does accomplish that.
> >
> > Did you mean explicit tools?
>
> Yes.
The subject of the post is tacit completeness and I said from the start
that for most users it makes a little difference, i
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 6:27 PM Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> > > It keeps tacit adverbial and conjunctional programming weak.
> > Refusing to use available tools does accomplish that.
>
> Did you mean explicit tools?
Yes.
> > I took a look at that problem, basically, it's this:
> > ...
> > Once
> > It keeps tacit adverbial and conjunctional programming weak.
>
> Refusing to use available tools does accomplish that.
Did you mean explicit tools?
> I took a look at that problem, basically, it's this:
> ...
> Once I had that, I think this explicit model would be straightforward
> to convert
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 1:42 PM Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> It keeps tacit adverbial and conjunctional programming weak.
Refusing to use available tools does accomplish that.
> "However, once one is outside the comfort zone things get tricky. Doubters
> can try to write a tacit version of the
> > ..however, in J there is an official obsession (in my opinion)
> > restricting verbs to return nouns, only nouns, and nothing but
> > nouns.
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
It keeps tacit adverbial and conjunctional programming weak.
> There are a variety of things I could wish for J:
First, I feel I owe you an explanation of why referring to the arguments of
verbs (from within an adverb or conjunction) is related to producing a
tacit version of {{ y `:6 }}. What follows are annotated sessions and it
is assumed that the hg script, which I have posted a few times before, has
bee
On Sun, 26 Dec 2021, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
So, what is the deeper issue? An initiate using j8xx interpreters could
easily refer tacitly to [x] and y from within tacit adverbs (and
conjunctions when using forks of j8xx interpreters) and write a version of
{{ y `:6 }} with a vengeance (illega
On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 10:50 PM Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> ..however, in J there is an official obsession (in my opinion)
> restricting verbs to return nouns, only nouns, and nothing but
> nouns.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
There are a variety of things I could wish for J: the ability
So, what is the deeper issue? An initiate using j8xx interpreters could
easily refer tacitly to [x] and y from within tacit adverbs (and
conjunctions when using forks of j8xx interpreters) and write a version of
{{ y `:6 }} with a vengeance (illegally, of course); however, in J there is
an official
29 matches
Mail list logo
