I suspect that at least one of us is or was quite confused. At any rate,
the challenge was and still is to produce a tacit fixed conjunction
counterpart of the explicit conjunction INTEGRATE using a j903 interpreter;
see,
[Jprogramming] Evaluating a Gerund Array (jsoftware.com)
Well.. hmm...
First off, I have made mistakes in previous posts. I think that the
old t. primitive has yet to receive a library implementation. That's
on my personal "things I would like to do" list. This may be relevant
here, given your reference to past discussions. I vaguely remember
making
I am replying inline...
On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 6:09 PM Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 3:38 PM Jose Mario Quintana
> wrote:
> > I am aware that BQN has first-class functions. Is there any other array
> > language that also has them?
>
> In this context, a mozilla page on "first
On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 3:38 PM Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> I am aware that BQN has first-class functions. Is there any other array
> language that also has them?
In this context, a mozilla page on "first class functions" is interesting:
> If there is ever an attack on the supreme majesty that is Cloak, I do
hope n: is implemented instead.
Unfortunately, once a black cat is out of the bag it becomes potential prey
making them an endangered species. If worse comes to worst, I bet your
proposed n: could become handy. However, it
I think it's more of a digestion issue.
--
Raul
On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 10:04 AM Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
>
> > Cloak strikes again,
>
> The power conjunction remains (too?) powerful :)
>
> Many years ago a car magazine was interviewing a few car racing drivers
> regarding their impressions
> Cloak strikes again,
The power conjunction remains (too?) powerful :)
Many years ago a car magazine was interviewing a few car racing drivers
regarding their impressions of a new sports car after testing it for a few
days; one whined that the engine was too powerful and another retorted with
a
(f g h) is a fork, where the last verb executed is g. the result after g is
executed is the same as the result after the fork is executed, as they are both
the same moment.
A1 =: 1 : 'w@:u'
A2 =: 1 : 'w m'
will produce the same noun results in: (where y is noun right argument, f g h
w are
(By coincidence, I mean that uACv is not the same as uCvA, in general. Nor
uA1A2 the same as uA2A1. And f A g h is not the same as (f g h)A, either,
e.g.)
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023, Elijah Stone wrote:
I cannot make heads nor tails of anything you have said. That f g(u@:) h is
the same as (f g
I cannot make heads nor tails of anything you have said. That f g(u@:) h is
the same as (f g h)(u@:) is true, but coincidence, and I don't see what it has
to do with anything.
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
Raul expressed by thinking,
.> x (f g n:A h) y would
Raul expressed by thinking,
.> x (f g n:A h) y would be same as (f g h) n: A -> (x ((x f y) g (x h
y)) y)A
the logic is that g executes 3rd/last in (f g h), and f g(u@:) h) is same as (f
g h)(u@:)
n: (A =: 1 : 'v m')is similar to (v@:) but applies to the result of the verb
phrase u (applied
Not quite (at least, not in my conception of it). If it is to be useful in a
larger verb train, you have to work out where exactly x and y come from. For
instance, if we have x (f g n:A h) y, should we apply (x f y) ((x f y) g (x h
y))A (x h y)? Or (x f y) (x g y)A (x h y)? I say it should
I find it difficult to reason about this n:
My best guess is that n: is itself an adverb and that u n: A (where u
is a verb and A is an adverb) would be handled by special code which
behaves like
{{ (u y) A}} : {{(x u y) A}}
Does that agree with your thinking?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Fri, Jan
To answer Raul, I did not use r2m after all. oa through the magic of cloak
allows 'Adverb' oa ('X' oa in example) where Adverb has a noun parameter.
> I had: u n: A y is (u y) A y. Whereas you have u r2m A y as simply (u y) A.
if [x] u n: A y produced the result of x u y as input to A, then
Oh, my n: is a little less expressive than your r2m. I had: u n: A y is (u y)
A y. Whereas you have u r2m A y as simply (u y) A.
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023, Elijah Stone wrote:
I proposed your 'r2m' as a primitive n: (for 'now') a while ago, and received
a lukewarm response. I don't think it can
I proposed your 'r2m' as a primitive n: (for 'now') a while ago, and received
a lukewarm response. I don't think it can be implemented other than as a
primitive. (And I still think it would be a good idea to have.)
Your solution which quotes the modifier name works, but I find it
Near as I can see, none of this corresponds to + r2m {{m&+}} 3
--
Raul
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:11 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
wrote:
>
> Cloak strikes again,
>
> isNoun_z_ =: (0 = 4!:0 ( :: 0:))@:<
> eval_z_ =: 1 : 'if. 2 ~: 3!:0 m do. m else. a: 1 : m end.' NB.1 : ' a: 1 : m'
> aar
Verbs that produce non-noun results are interpreter bugs. It is risky
to assume that bugs will not be fixed.
Henry Rich
On 1/13/2023 11:56 AM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
Cloak strikes again,
isNoun_z_ =: (0 = 4!:0 ( :: 0:))@:<
eval_z_ =: 1 : 'if. 2 ~: 3!:0 m do. m else. a: 1 : m
Cloak strikes again,
isNoun_z_ =: (0 = 4!:0 ( :: 0:))@:<
eval_z_ =: 1 : 'if. 2 ~: 3!:0 m do. m else. a: 1 : m end.' NB.1 : ' a: 1 : m'
aar =: 1 : 'if. isNoun ''u'' do. q =. m eval else. q =. u end. 5!:1 < ''q'' '
Cloak=: aar(0:`)(,^:)
oa =: 1 :'u Cloak @:' NB. apply quoted adverb after result.
Are you convinced that this would be viable?
Near as I can tell, for + r2m {{m&+}} 3 to be syntactically valid, r2m
must not be a conjunction. And the use of m here means that r2m cannot
be a verb. So r2m must be a noun (becoming the m in {{m&+}} which
prevents m from becoming the result of + y)
X =: 1 : 'm&+'
What definition of r2m (result to m argument) below would allow X to see the
result of + y (or x+y) as its m argument?
+ r2m X 3
purpose would be for X to produce a modifier from application of "verb".
Requirement is only that y argument (3 above) is outside any verb phrase.
21 matches
Mail list logo
