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
Hi Bill,
I am still getting this error:
|Win sharename must not have/: assert
| 'Win sharename must not have/' assert-. '/' e. sn
When I run both:
map_jmf_ 'xxx';('fn' jpath 'C:\Users\user\map.jmf);('fn' jpath
'C:\Users\user\map.jmf);1
and
share_jmf_ 'xxx';('fn' jpath
The (A n) proposal is based on these performance considerations.
u P. 'attribute' returns u but sets as side effect "context of y" (and u if
attribute is decorating the function) making the context available to u to
determine action.
((P. 'attribute') n) ie. (A n) turns a y argument (noun n)
Oh, I see what I was missing. Column are character classes and rows are
arbitrary states that are not the same as the classes depicted in columns.
So I can have 10 states and 5 columns...
Thanks a lot!
Cheers,
Pawel
--
For
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
Here, I think we're talking about
M=: (a.=LF)+2*a.e.'0123456789'
S0=: +.".>cutLF {{)n
1j1 2j1 1j1 NB. start here
1j0 2j0 1j0 NB. non-newline
1j0 1j2 1j0 NB. newline
}}
The columns correspond to character classes defined in M: column 2 is
numbers, column 1 is line feeds, column 0 is
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
When looking at S0 as it it is used with M where 0 is other characters, 1
is LF and 2 digits
I would expect rows to follow this and you have comments that seems not the
case. For example the third row in S0 is
1j0 1j2 1j0 NB. newline
I would expect it to represent digit. No?
Also, when we
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)
In ijrd there's a constraint that j must be strictly less than i.
So you might try (0;s0;m0;1 0 0 1) ;: test1
Note that this will fail if the right argument to ;: is empty.
Was there anything else that you did not understand about my approach there?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at
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.
Thanks Raul.
I realized I do not understand your S0, how you come up with it.
Shouldn't it be just 2 state machine? And if so why the following does not
work?
test1=: {{)n
1000ddd
2000
ab3000
1xxx
11
22
}}
m0=: a.=LF
s0=: +.".>cutLF {{)n
0j0 1j0NB. when r=0 and c=0 we
IIRC You may choose any share name need not the same as file name so long
as they contains no such special characters
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 6:50 PM Ak O wrote:
> I hope you are all well.
>
> I am trying to clarify the syntax for a shared map.
>
> When I try to execute:
>
> map_jmf_
I hope you are all well.
I am trying to clarify the syntax for a shared map.
When I try to execute:
map_jmf_ 'jdata';jdatafn;jdatafn;0NB. As the
Studio_Mapped_Files.
|Win sharename must not have /: assert
| 'win sharename must not have /' assert-.'/'e.sn
I am running
20 matches
Mail list logo
