J: explicit vs. tacit definitions 
Author Message
 J: explicit vs. tacit definitions

The "implicit verb assumption" makes it possible
to write a set of verbs without following a carefully
considered sequence.  e.g.

mean=: sum % #
sum =: +/

No recursion in sight, and deemed to be beneficial
"for the user base in real life".

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 18:48 PM
Subject: Re: J: explicit vs. tacit definitions

> >   NB. why did I have to redefine 'b'?

> In a tacit definition, unknown identifiers are assumed to be verbs
> and are grammatically treated as such -- at definition time, when
> the text is "compiled".  When you later (re-)defined "text" to be
> a noun, that caused a clash with the initial default assumption.
> The redefinition fixed that clash.

> An explicit defintion is not parsed at definition time.  It will
> be parsed (again and again) during execution of the verb etc.

> The implicit verb assumption makes it easy and elegant to write
> mutual recursive functions, but I wonder whether it caused more
> harm then benefits for the user base in real life.

>                                                 Martin Neitzel

Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:34:59 GMT  
 [ 1 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. J: explicit vs. tacit definitions

2. J2 explicit to tacit defs

3. function dependencies and tacit definitions (J)

4. Testing for tacit definitions in J

5. J: Nested explicit definitions: scope of names?

6. Explicit definition of a conjunction.

7. newFromOld explicit definition translation utility?

8. newFromOld explicit definition translation utility?

9. Problem with J table adverb & explicit definition

10. Explicit Definition

11. Explicit definition

12. Explicit definition


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software