[Jgeneral] JOD 1.0.0 addon
I have just pushed an update to the JOD addons. This version implements all my planned features with the last being getting objects from binary backups (bget). I used the latest J 9.01 beta-s to complete (bget) and run all my JOD build and unit tests. J 9.01 beta-s works well as far as JOD goes. The improvements to J show up in noticeably faster processing when loading JOD dump scripts - large J script representations of dictionaries. I've added some new documents to JODDOCUMENT. They are PDF versions of Jupyter notebooks that show how to use various JOD features. While building these documents I tested J 9.01 beta-s as a Jupyter kernel. Again no J crashes. The new JOD pdf manual is here: https://bakerjd99.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/jod.pdf JOD Jupyter notebooks are here: https://github.com/bakerjd99/jod/tree/master/jodnotebooks The updated JOD page is here: https://analyzethedatanotthedrivel.org/the-jod-page/ If you run into any problems let me know. From now on I will release bug-fixes and optimizations but no new features. The goal now is stability. -- John D. Baker bakerj...@gmail.com -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Rabbit holes
Sorry about that. People talk about whether an expression is tacit or not. I really don't care. Another way to tell if an expression is tacit or not. If the result is a noun it's not tacit. The expression may contain parenthesized sub-expressions which are tacit. Does that make the entire expression tacit. I don't think so, but does it really matter? And I really love monadic (;). Can do many wondrous things with it. On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 4:05 PM 'Jim Russell' via General < gene...@jsoftware.com> wrote: > I confused the issue Don, and I'm sure you are right. I was asking about > what I called "expositional tacit" expressions, which Roger explained > relied on forks, which let me finally understand how the x and y arguments > got applied to the verbs between the ";'s", which encouraged me to stick a > bunch of constants between ";" verbs, which needed no x or y arguments ..., > etc. > > Hey, I don't pretend to use correct terminology; I just show up every now > and then to flaunt my ignorance! > > > On Dec 9, 2019, at 5:25 PM, Don Guinn wrote: > > > > If I may throw in my two cents worth. > > > > Tacit expressions are somewhat vague as to what they are. To > over-simplify, > > they are verb expressions missing noun arguments due to lack of noun > > arguments in the statement or being enclosed in parentheses. Adverbs and > > conjunctions have nothing to do with whether or not an expression is > tacit. > > They simply use verbs and nouns as their arguments which then result in > new > > verbs using the same rules for the modifier whether in a tacit expression > > or not. > > > > In analyzing a statement one should first resolve how modifiers build new > > verbs. Then once the verbs are determined determine if the noun arguments > > are missing. If they are missing, look to the three tacit rules for > verbs - > > forks, hooks and trains. Otherwise, follow the normal right-to-left rule > > for verb execution. > > > > Okay. Maybe one could consider the statement (+/1 2 3) as having the > > expression (+/) tacit. I don't know. As I said earlier, tacit expressions > > are somewhat vague. > > > >>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:05 PM Raul Miller > wrote: > >> I don't really understand your questions -- and I'm also not sure how > >> I feel about calling noun phrases "tacit expressions". > >> That said, I think you might be asking about something related to this: > >> (16#.15),(16#.35),(10#.35),(1#.35),(0#.35) > >> 15 35 35 35 35 > >> And, possibly, also, this: > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabetical_order? > >> But I'm not sure... that said... depending on where this needs to > >> go... maybe we should take it to the c...@jsoftware.com forum? > >> Thanks, > >> -- > >> Raul > >>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 3:55 PM 'Jim Russell' via General > >>> wrote: > >>> Having started to understand tacit expressions, I'll use one to > >> illustrate what I found at the bottom of one: > >>> (16bf;16bz;10bz;1bz;0bz) > >>> +--+--+--+--+--+ > >>> |15|35|35|35|35| > >>> +--+--+--+--+--+ > >>> Which raises another, why no A thru Z? > >>> Or a third, originally mentioned by Robert G. Brown: > >>> Why are so many things arraigned alphabetically, when there is > >> absolutely no intrinsic order to the letters of the alphabet? (Is there > >> anything else that needs a mumbled child's song to remember?) > >>> (Speaking of RGB: Having lost touch, I checked Wikipedia; > >>> Good news-he is listed, > >>> Bad news -there is a link to his obituary, > >>> Good news - there is a 404 not found error. > >>> Anyone have recent news? > >>> -- > >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > >> -- > >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > -- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > -- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Rabbit holes
I confused the issue Don, and I'm sure you are right. I was asking about what I called "expositional tacit" expressions, which Roger explained relied on forks, which let me finally understand how the x and y arguments got applied to the verbs between the ";'s", which encouraged me to stick a bunch of constants between ";" verbs, which needed no x or y arguments ..., etc. Hey, I don't pretend to use correct terminology; I just show up every now and then to flaunt my ignorance! > On Dec 9, 2019, at 5:25 PM, Don Guinn wrote: > > If I may throw in my two cents worth. > > Tacit expressions are somewhat vague as to what they are. To over-simplify, > they are verb expressions missing noun arguments due to lack of noun > arguments in the statement or being enclosed in parentheses. Adverbs and > conjunctions have nothing to do with whether or not an expression is tacit. > They simply use verbs and nouns as their arguments which then result in new > verbs using the same rules for the modifier whether in a tacit expression > or not. > > In analyzing a statement one should first resolve how modifiers build new > verbs. Then once the verbs are determined determine if the noun arguments > are missing. If they are missing, look to the three tacit rules for verbs - > forks, hooks and trains. Otherwise, follow the normal right-to-left rule > for verb execution. > > Okay. Maybe one could consider the statement (+/1 2 3) as having the > expression (+/) tacit. I don't know. As I said earlier, tacit expressions > are somewhat vague. > >>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:05 PM Raul Miller wrote: >> I don't really understand your questions -- and I'm also not sure how >> I feel about calling noun phrases "tacit expressions". >> That said, I think you might be asking about something related to this: >> (16#.15),(16#.35),(10#.35),(1#.35),(0#.35) >> 15 35 35 35 35 >> And, possibly, also, this: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabetical_order? >> But I'm not sure... that said... depending on where this needs to >> go... maybe we should take it to the c...@jsoftware.com forum? >> Thanks, >> -- >> Raul >>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 3:55 PM 'Jim Russell' via General >>> wrote: >>> Having started to understand tacit expressions, I'll use one to >> illustrate what I found at the bottom of one: >>> (16bf;16bz;10bz;1bz;0bz) >>> +--+--+--+--+--+ >>> |15|35|35|35|35| >>> +--+--+--+--+--+ >>> Which raises another, why no A thru Z? >>> Or a third, originally mentioned by Robert G. Brown: >>> Why are so many things arraigned alphabetically, when there is >> absolutely no intrinsic order to the letters of the alphabet? (Is there >> anything else that needs a mumbled child's song to remember?) >>> (Speaking of RGB: Having lost touch, I checked Wikipedia; >>> Good news-he is listed, >>> Bad news -there is a link to his obituary, >>> Good news - there is a 404 not found error. >>> Anyone have recent news? >>> -- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> -- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Rabbit holes
If I may throw in my two cents worth. Tacit expressions are somewhat vague as to what they are. To over-simplify, they are verb expressions missing noun arguments due to lack of noun arguments in the statement or being enclosed in parentheses. Adverbs and conjunctions have nothing to do with whether or not an expression is tacit. They simply use verbs and nouns as their arguments which then result in new verbs using the same rules for the modifier whether in a tacit expression or not. In analyzing a statement one should first resolve how modifiers build new verbs. Then once the verbs are determined determine if the noun arguments are missing. If they are missing, look to the three tacit rules for verbs - forks, hooks and trains. Otherwise, follow the normal right-to-left rule for verb execution. Okay. Maybe one could consider the statement (+/1 2 3) as having the expression (+/) tacit. I don't know. As I said earlier, tacit expressions are somewhat vague. On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:05 PM Raul Miller wrote: > I don't really understand your questions -- and I'm also not sure how > I feel about calling noun phrases "tacit expressions". > > That said, I think you might be asking about something related to this: > >(16#.15),(16#.35),(10#.35),(1#.35),(0#.35) > 15 35 35 35 35 > > And, possibly, also, this: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabetical_order? > > But I'm not sure... that said... depending on where this needs to > go... maybe we should take it to the c...@jsoftware.com forum? > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 3:55 PM 'Jim Russell' via General > wrote: > > > > Having started to understand tacit expressions, I'll use one to > illustrate what I found at the bottom of one: > > > >(16bf;16bz;10bz;1bz;0bz) > > +--+--+--+--+--+ > > |15|35|35|35|35| > > +--+--+--+--+--+ > > > > Which raises another, why no A thru Z? > > > > Or a third, originally mentioned by Robert G. Brown: > > Why are so many things arraigned alphabetically, when there is > absolutely no intrinsic order to the letters of the alphabet? (Is there > anything else that needs a mumbled child's song to remember?) > > > > (Speaking of RGB: Having lost touch, I checked Wikipedia; > > Good news-he is listed, > > Bad news -there is a link to his obituary, > > Good news - there is a 404 not found error. > > Anyone have recent news? > > -- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Rabbit holes
People have been putting things in alphabetic order for about 3500 years—because it’s useful. There are variations in the order of letters and what letters are included in English, Hebrew, Greek, Cyrillic etc but all known alphabets begin with A or equivalent. There were alphabets even before the phonetic alphabet. Another interesting question is why keyboards were not arranged alphabetically—it goes back to the experience of telegraph operators and the mechanical difficulty of keys arranged alphabetically and thus the QWERTY keyboard was designed. Donna Y dy...@sympatico.ca > On Dec 9, 2019, at 3:55 PM, 'Jim Russell' via General > wrote: > > Why are so many things arraigned alphabetically, when there is absolutely no > intrinsic order to the letters of the alphabet? (Is there anything else that > needs a mumbled child's song to remember?) -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Rabbit holes
I don't really understand your questions -- and I'm also not sure how I feel about calling noun phrases "tacit expressions". That said, I think you might be asking about something related to this: (16#.15),(16#.35),(10#.35),(1#.35),(0#.35) 15 35 35 35 35 And, possibly, also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabetical_order? But I'm not sure... that said... depending on where this needs to go... maybe we should take it to the c...@jsoftware.com forum? Thanks, -- Raul On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 3:55 PM 'Jim Russell' via General wrote: > > Having started to understand tacit expressions, I'll use one to illustrate > what I found at the bottom of one: > >(16bf;16bz;10bz;1bz;0bz) > +--+--+--+--+--+ > |15|35|35|35|35| > +--+--+--+--+--+ > > Which raises another, why no A thru Z? > > Or a third, originally mentioned by Robert G. Brown: > Why are so many things arraigned alphabetically, when there is absolutely no > intrinsic order to the letters of the alphabet? (Is there anything else that > needs a mumbled child's song to remember?) > > (Speaking of RGB: Having lost touch, I checked Wikipedia; > Good news-he is listed, > Bad news -there is a link to his obituary, > Good news - there is a 404 not found error. > Anyone have recent news? > -- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
[Jgeneral] Rabbit holes
Having started to understand tacit expressions, I'll use one to illustrate what I found at the bottom of one: (16bf;16bz;10bz;1bz;0bz) +--+--+--+--+--+ |15|35|35|35|35| +--+--+--+--+--+ Which raises another, why no A thru Z? Or a third, originally mentioned by Robert G. Brown: Why are so many things arraigned alphabetically, when there is absolutely no intrinsic order to the letters of the alphabet? (Is there anything else that needs a mumbled child's song to remember?) (Speaking of RGB: Having lost touch, I checked Wikipedia; Good news-he is listed, Bad news -there is a link to his obituary, Good news - there is a 404 not found error. Anyone have recent news? -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] support for case sensitive file system in macos
Note that Jqt also has a toLower for the mac in base/util.cpp/cfcase. I don't think this caused the "first line error", but you would need to recompile it for normal use. On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 8:27 PM Dimitrios Galanakis wrote: > I initialized a git repository and added the 'system' dir files. So I > don't think that there has been in change in my change. > > In addition (I am embarrassed to say that I did this), I installed j901 in > the root directory (easiest directory, I could think of without cases). > > bin/jqt.command > > worked successfully and I was presented with the IDE. > > Therefore it is definitely capitalization problems. > -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
