Please do not take it personally; see, for example [0, 1]. I just take the pearls and brush off the slime... Alright, I occasionally push some buttons ;)
Andrew Dabrowski wrote recently [2] "I do fear that J is moribund. I don't see it exciting the interest of young programmers. " It is nice to see an energetic mind thinking about interesting topics; it would be a pity if is driven away (my apologies in advance if I am making a wrong assumption). By the way, the post [3] includes the following: " [This sender failed our fraud detection checks and may not be who they appear to be. Learn about spoofing at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSpoofing] " :D [0] [Jprogramming] Jx 1.1 Release http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017-October/049104.html [1] [Jprogramming] Recursive programming (and scoping therein) http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2013-February/031678.html [2] [Jchat] the language of the future for the programming of the past http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/chat/2018-January/007477.html [3] [Jsource] Propositions http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/source/2018-February/001193.html On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:13 PM, james faure <james.fa...@epitech.eu> wrote: > I will add however that posting a single line like that and presenting it > as if it were a definitive refutation of the entire concept is not very > tactful. > > ________________________________ > From: james faure > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 10:05:16 PM > To: sou...@jsoftware.com > Subject: Re: [Jsource] Propositions > > > Ok, I suspected as much, thx for the example > > ________________________________ > From: Source <source-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com> on behalf of Raul > Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:57:10 PM > To: Source forum > Subject: Re: [Jsource] Propositions > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 3:39 PM, james faure <james.fa...@epitech.eu> > wrote: > > So... Our generator is infinite, and we cannot fall back to conjuring it > up physically. Does this mean that some operatoions are impossible, and > must return a domain error? Operations must in any event be stored > symbolically, so some errors may go undetected for some time (pending a > rigorous proof of the following conjecture: 'we are able to either > guarantee correctness for all generator links based on i._, or bail out > immediately with an error'). Here is perhaps our biggest problem then: Are > there any errors that cannot be predicted by a generator link on i._ ? > Well, boxes aside, we should be able to see coming all syntax, rank and > length errors should be predictable for any generator link, since we can > analyze the complete information we have for generating the array. As a > result then, we need this axiom (for a valid generator): it must guarantee > it's ability to generate an array (short of system limits)). Should my > conjecture about guaranteeing correctness on i._, prove false, then the > offending operations on infinite generators must trigger a domain error. > > You should be aware that addition of certain values can trigger errors: > > _+__ > |NaN error > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
