;
> The [.. and [... tokens may not be needed if the outer parens concept can
> be implemented. For example the fork u1 u0 FORK v might be:
>
> ([. ([. ].)) or more clearly explicitly 2 : '[. u v'
>
> but that parsing may be more (actually very) difficult than [..
> disam
Let me state first that I do not disagree with your proposal and what
Pascal is also suggesting (as I understand them). Actually, that is what I
suggested to Thomas to explore as change for the current implementation for
Jx, before this thread started, in a private conversation.
The current behav
This issue has frustrated me more than once, especially as I’ve gotten into
more abstract coding and writing general tooling. I think it stands out as one
of the primary design questions I would reconsider if I were to write a J clone
or derivative.
> On Mar 15, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Thomas Cost
Thank you for taking the time to run the tests. My guess is that the old
interpreters allowed passing adverbs and conjunction to adverbs since the
first time that a train of adverbs was implemented.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:12 AM, wrote:
> [For historical issues, it helps to spell out "Versio
[For historical issues, it helps to spell out "Version" and "Release"
with the numbers:
J Version 1 was rather known as "APL\?" or "APL90 J" as
presented in http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/J1990a.htm#intro
J Version 2 - 7: = 1990-1993
J Version 7 (open source) wa
rums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf
Of Pascal Jasmin
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 1:13 PM
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox request for requests
These are what I think they should be, and what I do with double adverbs, and
what would become allowed again if (a0 a1) does
al Message -
> From: "neit...@gaertner.de"
> To: programm...@jsoftware.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox request for requests
>
> [For historical issues, it helps to spell out "Version" and "Rele
ubject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox request for requests
[For historical issues, it helps to spell out "Version" and "Release"
with the numbers:
J Version 1 was rather known as "APL\?" or "APL90 J" as
presented in http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/J1990a.htm#intro
ater. For the 2 parameter version,
> there's always 2 : 'u c0 v c1 u c2 v'
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Jose Mario Quintana
> To: Programming forum
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 12:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox reque
v c1 u c2 v'
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Jose Mario Quintana
> To: Programming forum
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 12:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox request for requests
>
> NB. Train Table of the Golden Era
>
> http:/
>
>> - Original Message -----
>> From: "neit...@gaertner.de"
>> To: programm...@jsoftware.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox request for requests
>>
>> [For historical issues, it helps to
I haven't said what I meant to say. I'll try to do better.
It seems clear to me that passing an adverb into an adverb must be
forbidden. Otherwise, why would
(A0 A1) be anything other than executing A1 on A0, without waiting for
any further operand? And we don't want that.
And we want X0 (
x27;u c0 v c1 u c2 v'
- Original Message -
From: Jose Mario Quintana
To: Programming forum
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox request for requests
NB. Train Table of the Golden Era
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-
I didn't mean THAT J7.01, I meant 1990's J7. The 'support' in J6 was
unintentional.
The documentation of x (A0 A1) <-> (x A1) A2 was removed
from the Dictionary when all the other trains were; it was replaced by
wording that says (A0 A1) is an adverb. What else should it mean but that
(x A0) i
No, you would have to go way back; see,
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2008-February/009871.html
Incidentally, I do not think there is a bug in the current implementation
about
(x a1) a2 <-> x (a1 a2)
This equivalence was removed at some point from the Dictionary maybe
because it
? How far back do you have to go to find an old system that allows an
adverb as an operand to an adverb? J7 didn't allow it, did it?
Henry Rich
On 3/15/2016 7:03 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
What else would it do? The very old, and current Jx, behavior is to pass
(N0 A1) as an argument to
What else would it do? The very old, and current Jx, behavior is to pass
(N0 A1) as an argument to A2 but that is blasphemy :)
(With conjunction giving an error) The current official J does no support
the Golden Age interpretation of C A but Jx does; so, it Jx would keep
going.
On Tue, Mar
I think the motivation is that N0 (A1 A2) just oughta behave like ((N0
A1) A2) because, well, what else would it do? It does behave that way
when the result R3 is noun/verb/conjunction (with conjunction giving an
error); why not adverb? Methinks the current behavior is simply a bug.
If it tu
I should disclose that recently I had discussed with Thomas the idea of
changing the current Jx interpretation of x (a0 a1) when (x a0)
produces an adverb or conjunction as the train (x a0) a1. The project was
(and still is in the planning stage). If it is successful it will probably
will be
So, ok...
Adverb *trains* get created by "6 Bident".
Adverb *application* gets handled by "3 Adverb".
And, yes, this includes the application of adverb trains.
And, yes, the dictionary's coverage of the behavior adverb trains is
pretty much just a few examples.
And, more generally, error cases
I am going by experiment, not looking at the source, but I think it's
like this:
Sometimes the interpreter executes a fragment and expects a certain part
of speech back. Getting a different part of speech is flagged as a
syntax error. Most notable of these is execution of a verb, where
retu
This is getting off course, but I will try to clarify. Here are the
current parsing rules:
EDGE VERB NOUNANY 0 Monad
EDGE+AVN VERB VERBNOUN 1 Monad
EDGE+AVN NOUN VERBNOUN 2 Dyad
EDGE+AVN VERB+NOUNADV ANY
Original Message -
From: Thomas Costigliola
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox request for requests
> I am not quite sure what you mean by "when an adverb is applied to an adverb"
Once (a0 a1) is parsed it becomes
I am trying to make sense of this proposal:
> change the parsing rules so that the application of adverb trains
> are part of parsing and not built in to action "3 Adverb".
What does this even mean?
The "3 Adverb" action is a parsing action.
So it's sort of like you are saying "the application
I said: "there is no 'Train parsing rule'", to be more clear it should
be: there is no "Adverb train application rule".
On 03/15/2016 04:28 PM, Thomas Costigliola wrote:
I am not quite sure what you mean by "when an adverb is applied to an
adverb"
Once (a0 a1) is parsed it becomes an adverb.
I am not quite sure what you mean by "when an adverb is applied to an adverb"
Once (a0 a1) is parsed it becomes an adverb. It is a new adverb and it
is its own self contained object. Once we apply X to it, there is no
more parsing to be done, there is only the result of applying the adverb
to
I am not quite sure what you mean by "when an adverb is applied to an adverb"
But the parsing rule is the line that reads
EDGE CAVN CAVN ANY 6 Bident
at http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dicte.htm
And the significance of that line, for the case where we combine
adverbs, is mentioned in the
completely postfix.
Postfix conjunctions (double adverbs) are fundamentally adverbs that return
adverbs.
- Original Message -
From: Raul Miller
To: Programming forum
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox request for requests
This gets into the gu
X (a0 a1) is fully parsed once the application of the adverb train to X
happens, so no further parsing is done and the parsing rules will not
help us resolve what to do next. I don't think the language specifies
what happens when an adverb is applied to an adverb, or even
acknowledges that it c
combines it with its argument. (happy to share if any
interest)
From: Thomas Costigliola
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox request for requests
I believe this is what Pascal is trying to dem
This gets into the guts of
http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dicte.htm and the distinction
between a train and direct use.
Basically, though, these two expressions are different:
X (a0 a1)
(X a0) a1
The first forms a train, (which, hypothetically speaking could be
associated with som
ermail/source/2015-February/000663.html
Very useful, I'll implement these soon.
Original message
From: Joe Bogner
Date: 3/9/2016 7:26 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox request for requests
Some wishlist ideas (some are likely
I believe this is what Pascal is trying to demonstrate (correct me if I
am wrong):
0 (1 : '/') \
/\
0 ((1 : '/') \)
|syntax error
| 0((1 :'/')\)
A sequence of adverb applications when the first application returns an
adverb is okay (it produces the adverb train), however, applied
mbinations of adverbs and conjunction
> trains.
>
>
> ________
> From: Thomas Costigliola
> To: J Programming Forum
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 10:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox request for requests
>
>
>
>
> Great list
s and conjunction
trains.
From: Thomas Costigliola
To: J Programming Forum
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox request for requests
Great list Joe, I'll respond to each below...
On Mar 9, 2016 7:26 AM, Joe Bogner
and 2 for me. I'd like to hear some ideas on how the
>> > interface should be designed.
>> >
>> > > 5. More interop: .NET/Java
>> >
>> > I have no personal interest in those specifically, but contributions are
>> > always welcome.
&g
m a server environment. In my usage, I was using a
go based server to invoke J -
https://github.com/joebo/lang-lab/tree/master/go/http-j
>
> Very useful, I'll implement these soon.
>
>
> Original message
> From: Joe Bogner
> Date: 3/9/2016 7:26 AM (GM
gramm...@jsoftware.com
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox request for requests
For CSV/JSON loading and storing, I think the best approach would be to
write C functions that convert these formats to and from J nouns. A J
noun is the type A from jtype.h (line 41), an
; 1. Method of getting memory address of current J instance:
> > > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/source/2014-May/000581.html
> > > 2. Method of cleaning up instance memory on linux:
> > > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/source/2015-February/000663.html
> >
> > Ver
thod of cleaning up instance memory on linux:
> > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/source/2015-February/000663.html
>
> Very useful, I'll implement these soon.
>
>
> Original message
> From: Joe Bogner
> Date: 3/9/2016 7:26 AM (GMT-05:00)
>
nt these soon.
Original message
From: Joe Bogner
Date: 3/9/2016 7:26 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox request for requests
Some wishlist ideas (some are likely controversial):
1. Optimized CSV/TSV loading and writing
2. JSON
gestions are welcome.
Original message
From: Marshall Lochbaum
Date: 3/8/2016 11:07 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Unbox request for requests
I finally got unicode identifiers working with full test compliance.
Every unicode charac
Some wishlist ideas (some are likely controversial):
1. Optimized CSV/TSV loading and writing
2. JSON support
3. Parallel processing (big topic, but maybe something bite-sized for
now - just to show some progress)
4. Sockets built-in (comparing to k/kona's simple way of retrieving
web data or ipc)
I finally got unicode identifiers working with full test compliance.
Every unicode character is treated as an alphabetic, and invalid UTF-8
gives a spelling error.
]π2 =. 1p2
9.8696
%: π2
3.14159
Do you want this in unbox's master branch? If so I'll send a pull
request. The code is at https
Over here:
https://github.com/iocane/unbox
It's a fork of J which (as the name suggests) is open to more
adventurous experiments than the version distributed by Jsoftware.
Marshall
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:55:18PM -0500, Devon McCormick wrote:
> I guess I missed it but "Unbox" is...?
>
> On
I guess I missed it but "Unbox" is...?
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Thomas Costigliola wrote:
>
>
> So far Unbox has a couple of bug fixes and build system changes not in the
> standard source release. I have begun working on a re-implementation of
> gerunds that should fix some bugs and allo
46 matches
Mail list logo
