On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 1:15 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
wrote:
> > I don't think there's a strong need to allow users to set flags on nouns.
> It's rather a dangerous thing to do, and you could instead just run the nouns
> through /:~ or ~.
>
> marked nouns would allow those functions to
not exactly what I had in mind
so we don’t want no bloat, right
how about simply assigning numbers?
magic numbers are about as readable as magic letters
we already define sugar in english.ijs so some name
could be added for associativity which might be 2⁰=2¹-1
(all four currently known
Thank you, Cliff! Those fractal examples are quite pretty!
The operator in the first, #.@|:, is also fold, namely ([+2*])/, but the #.@|:
expression is nicer and I like being able to use it rather than being forced to
do ([+2*])/ as I would be in APL.
The other examples are even better in that
I'd make A: a conjunction that, depending on u, returns a verb or an adverb:
If u is a verb, assume v are a set of properties to set, either binary (a
verb is commutative or not), or multi-valued with a defined default value.
If u is a noun, then treat it as a set of property "keys" (fretted, as
> I don't think there's a strong need to allow users to set flags on nouns.
It's rather a dangerous thing to do, and you could instead just run the nouns
through /:~ or ~.
marked nouns would allow those functions to return identity (while retaining
marking/annotation of sorted/unique)
i.
