Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

If you subscribe to the chat forum (perhaps after Jx v1.1 is released), and remind me of the questions you raise here, I will be happy to continue this discussion there. Thanks, -- Raul On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: >> Won't this

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

> Won't this destroy adverb trains? I do not think so. I am not aware of any J adverb train destroyed by a Jx v1.1 interpreter. > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > wrote: > > Jx version 1.1, not yet released, allows adverbs and conjunctions to act on > > boxed

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

The documentation for Jx v1.0 ( http://www.2bestsystems.com/fo undation/j/jx1/ ) has been fixed; thanks again for the feedback. On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Jose Mario Quintana < jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote: > Inline comments follow... > > > Hi all ! > > > > I tried out the

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

Won't this destroy adverb trains? On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > Jx version 1.1, not yet released, allows adverbs and conjunctions to act on > boxed verbs, adverbs and conjunctions (see [0] for the motivation), A train is a deferred

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

What is "this"? On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Raul Miller wrote: > Won't this destroy adverb trains? > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > wrote: > > Inline comments follow... > > > >> Hi

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

Won't this destroy adverb trains? Thanks, -- Raul On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > Inline comments follow... > >> Hi all ! >> >> I tried out the functionality of Jx and got some problems. >> I expected these two expressions to be

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

Inline comments follow... > Hi all ! > > I tried out the functionality of Jx and got some problems. > I expected these two expressions to be equivalent, but got syntax error > on the second. > > +(".. '/') 1 2 3 > 6 > +(".. [: / ]:) 1 2 3 One issue is that ]: is an adverb and adverbs

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

;>> in actual code. For new code, m"_"n will work for any n. >>> >>> Henry Rich >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:07 AM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming < >>> programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote: >>> >>>> th

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

> >> > >> > >> isgerund =: 0:`(0 -.@e. 3 : ('y (5!:0)';'1')"0)@.(0 < L.) :: 0: > >> > >> > >> tests that each "box" can be passed to 5!:0 without error. > >> > >> > >>

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

>> >> ________________ >> From: Bill <bbill@gmail.com> >> To: "programm...@jsoftware.com" <programm...@jsoftware.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 9:01 PM >> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release >&g

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

I am very sorry to hear that; Jx is certainly not for the faint-hearted. One of my favorite quotes is "the description is not the described." Even if one could have a recipe which is a perfect description for producing a deliciously decadent meal; one cannot, or rather should not, eat the

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

Personally, I'll be more impressed when I see documentation on the resulting grammar. I have had few problems creating code which uses inconsistent grammar. I can imagine the poetic delight in writing code which takes advantage of these ambiguities. I very much understand that this kind of

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

A common objective of many Jx extensions is to unleash the latent power of an official J interpreter to facilitate the use of higher-order functions (verbs, adverbs and conjunctions) by providing the means to pass them, directly, as arguments to other functions. Arguably, the Dictionary [0] only

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

error. >> >> ____________ >> From: Bill <bbill@gmail.com> >> To: "programm...@jsoftware.com" <programm...@jsoftware.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 9:01 PM >> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release &

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

gramm...@jsoftware.com" <programm...@jsoftware.com> > Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 9:01 PM > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release > > > > J interpreter must know when a noun is a gerund, so is it possible to add > a new primitive to test for gerund? O

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

<programm...@jsoftware.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release J interpreter must know when a noun is a gerund, so is it possible to add a new primitive to test for gerund? Or is there already J script to test for gerund? Sent from my iPhone

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

A noun need not be a gerund. Sent from my iPhone On 3 Aug, 2017, at 9:19 AM, Don Guinn wrote: > A gerund is a noun. > > g=:+`- > g-:;:'+-' > 1 > > I don't know if others have taken advantage of building gerunds as boxed > lists, but I have. Can gerunds have rank

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

A gerund is a noun. g=:+`- g-:;:'+-' 1 I don't know if others have taken advantage of building gerunds as boxed lists, but I have. Can gerunds have rank greater than 1? So far I haven't found a use for that, but who knows? On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Bill wrote:

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

J interpreter must know when a noun is a gerund, so is it possible to add a new primitive to test for gerund? Or is there already J script to test for gerund? Sent from my iPhone On 3 Aug, 2017, at 3:36 AM, Henry Rich wrote: > I expect to make some more improvements to

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

I also thought that it would be unlikely to brake any existing code [0]. It was implemented as " and broke an important code I had written! That is why it was reimplemented as ":: instead. [0] [Jprogramming] How m"n shoulda been defined Jose Mario Quintana

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

Oh, wait, I missed the cyclic part. I still think it could be done differently. Why don't we have a cyclic gerund invocation which does not involve " ? For example, we could add an n value for g`:n which creates a rank _ verb which has an effective rank of -#$g Anyways, I really don't like the

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

"where n is not _" That is a good idea. We tried trying to detect a gerund for any n but it didn't make it past the standard library. Ignoring the gerund case for rank _ might get further. I don't remember if I tested for stuff like (<'const')"0. I will check that when I get a chance. On

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

In other words, this seems to be the proposal: G=: mean`'' G"0 i. 2 ┌┐ │mean│ ├┤ │mean│ └┘ mean=:+/%# G"0 i.2 0 1 But we could already do this: G`:6"0 i.2 0 1 Personally, I do not feel comfortable agreeing that saving three characters is enough benefit for creating

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

m"n with gerund m seems valuable to me. From: Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> To: Programming forum <programm...@jsoftware.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 3:36 PM Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release I expect

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:19 PM, bill lam wrote: > IMO Clang does a good job here. And the following > can be compiled without warning. > *((volatile I*)0)=0; // scaf > > I think jx provides useful facilities but some of them are > incompatible with J dictionary. > > Ср,

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

I expect to make some more improvements to dyad u"n, and eventually to rewrite the monad to match the dyad. My availability to work on this will be intermittent for a while. The 8.06 code as is works, and fixes a long-standing bug reported by Martin Neitzel. I have suggested using m"n, where n

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

IMO Clang does a good job here. And the following can be compiled without warning. *((volatile I*)0)=0; // scaf I think jx provides useful facilities but some of them are incompatible with J dictionary. Ср, 02 авг 2017, Thomas Costigliola написал(а): > You can try removing the conditional

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

You can try removing the conditional statement enclosing that line, but for now I would say the patch is broken under Clang. Since the rank code was completely rewritten in J805 and J806 and ":: is based on the J804 rank with some unfinished updates Henry was working on, the real solution is

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

Yes, I use Clang and have -Werror -Wextra in CFLAGS. Sometimes vs2013 is much less tolerant. Ср, 02 авг 2017, Thomas Costigliola написал(а): > That looks like Henry's code taken from cr.c at some older version. It > compiles fine for me in GCC and Visual Studio 2013. It is in the > implementation

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

That looks like Henry's code taken from cr.c at some older version. It compiles fine for me in GCC and Visual Studio 2013. It is in the implementation of "::, which seems to be working in my tests, so that code never gets hit. Are you using Clang? It's much less tolerant of code like that.

Re: [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release

When I tried to compile, but this line in best.c failed. *((I*)0)=0; // scaf and I can not understand its intention, access to memory address 0 should cause segfault. Вт, 01 авг 2017, Jose Mario Quintana написал(а): > A brief description of the Jx v1.0 extensions, together with links to a >