Thanks much for the thorough review. Your comments are about a third
each of things we need to change, things we have changed already
ourselves, and things we are going to leave unchanged. You found a lot,
so we will be busy.
Specifics:
?. has rank _ because if it had rank 0 you would get
Great work again. It looks very impressive (aside of very dense, which
is a good thing for a reference card).
I have gone through it in detail, and learned a few corners of J I did
not know yet.
I made a list of remarks I had which, I see now, has grown
considerably, but please take it as a sign
#@:(#/)@:>:@:i.@:>:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 10:32 PM Henry Rich wrote:
> Special Combination Hauke asked for: if you don't get a laugh from (#\
> y) you just don't understand J.
>
--
For information about J forums see
Yes. You don't learn J from a reference card. [That is, normal people
don't. 50 years ago I was reading the error-message manuals for PL/I
and I learned a lot from them]
I see 3 main uses:
1. What's the primitive to do outfix?
2. How do I debug?
3. What's in J, anyway?
The last is the
2?.8
2 4
Uninflected ? might need a footnote (or should maybe be elided --
that's possibly not the sort of information a person would value from
the reference card).
I imagine that the reference card's primary value for me would be
reminding me of operations which I had forgotten and a way of
Possibly Germany, if you look at older STEM articles from mid 20. century they
used Gothic Blackletter script for sine and the rest trigonometric funs. \Re
and \Im are defined in article class and memoir, so they may well be old.
Aug 10, 2022, 00:28 by elro...@elronnd.net:
>
> I am curious
Yes, but it obscures the point that the result is random, so one is left
looking for patterns.
On Tue, 9 Aug 2022, Henry Rich wrote:
Giving the actual value is a way of making the point that the stream is
the same for all invocations, unlike for 2 ? 8.
Henry Rich
On 8/9/2022 6:54 PM,
Giving the actual value is a way of making the point that the stream is
the same for all invocations, unlike for 2 ? 8.
Henry Rich
On 8/9/2022 6:54 PM, Elijah Stone wrote:
That 2 ?. 8 is 2 4 is an accident. It doesn't explain why or how ?.
works. For instance, ([ , %~) is another verb that
That 2 ?. 8 is 2 4 is an accident. It doesn't explain why or how ?. works.
For instance, ([ , %~) is another verb that gives 2 4 from 2 f 8; I'm sure
imagination can supply others. The random number is not guaranteed to
generate any result in particular across versions; only, within a given
Thanks to you, Hauke, Don for the comments.
The Glossary has links to definitions.
We made the decision that !&| would be better known that the standard
math symbols
Certain special combinations ARE shown; which ones would you like?
2 ?. 8 is 2 4. What's wrong with that?
The Re and Im are
There’s a table for Complex Numbers, and | is \|•\| in that context.
As a Scalar Monadic Verb on non-complex arguments, however,
| is usually learned as |•|, or in J
| -: (* *)
saying | means \|•\| might lead people to believe
5 = | 3 4
even though the heading says /Scalar/ Monadic Verbs
Second
I'll add that while I completely understand the original choice to elide
subscripts, I will argue for them anyway. I have an article in the dustbin on
the relationship between verb rank and noun rank, which used both subscripts
and ellipses, because I found them didactically valuable; I think
Oh, also in 'apply [x&]u til x y false', it's should say that it's waiting
until _v_ is false, not u. And it should mention that this conventional usage
is specifically for the case when v is a predicate, as the behaviour is
different when v can return something other than a boolean.
On Tue,
+1 for using subscripts, also in explanations of hooks and forks,
and in the Modifier Trains table
regarding footnotes b and c in the Scalar Dyadic Verbs table,
I read c as explaining the /inflection/, and b the attempt at
translating to known semantics in the middle column
So I don’t think it’s
It may be useful to a serious programmer, but I think it would scare a new
user away. Maybe another card fitting on one page and larger type with
things that one now learning J would find useful. have a 1080 screen and
the type is too small to easily read when showing the entire sheet on the
It claims that x|y is x mod y, but it is in fact y mod x.
I don't think an example result of 2 4 for ?. is helpful.
In 'scalar dyadic verbs', why is footnote b attached to 'rnd', but footnote c
is attached to '?.'? They should be consistent.
I think that instead of 'Rank of ?. _, others 0',
That’s been pretty much negative (but hopefully constructive) critique.
But I also want to thank Viktor et al for the work they put into it.
It will be a good and valuable resource once you decide it’s not a draft
version any more.
Am 09.08.22 um 22:13 schrieb Henry Rich:
Viktor Grigorov has a
Again, I’d like to see a version of the document,
maybe 1.0.0-draft220809 now.
The headers should align vertically, e.g.
\phantom yScalar monadic verbs\phantom y
(same for Selection, Adverbs etc)
and the footnote mark after Scalar should
in both cases be followed by a ›\ ‹
please use colors
Viktor Grigorov has a draft version of the new J Reference Card. Please
criticize it.
The source for the card is a LaTeX document, and will be freely
available for editing.
A PDF version is at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bpyfmksD-XEJaJJ972jOy3b2_KWfV0Wi/view?usp=sharing
Henry Rich
19 matches
Mail list logo
