Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!socrates.umd.edu!socrates!rockwell From: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) Newsgroups: comp.lang.apl Subject: Re: what is j? Message-ID: Date: 20 May 91 12:48:00 GMT References: <199113.993.337@canrem.uucp> <3970007@hpwrce.HP.COM> <1991May18.004902.29060@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM> <1991May18.042957.704@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM> <1991May20.045753.14595@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM> Sender: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) Organization: Traveller Lines: 38 In-Reply-To: rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM's message of 20 May 91 04: 57:53 GMT Robert Bernecky: I think my objection to Roger's use of the term "compiled" might be addressed in a way which also covers your computational complexity argument by a definition of the following nature: Compilation: The process of translating an algorithm expressed in an arbitrary notation into another notation which has execution speed properties which approximate those of hand-written assembler code. Hmmm... but that doesn't conflict with Roger Hui: ... the subclass of verbs known as tacit definitions are compiled. For example, the following verbs are compiled: square =. ^&2 ... After all, ^&2 is an algorithm (though rather minimalist :-), and it is getting translated. You could also say that the code for ^&2 was compiled at the same time the interpreter was compiled, that fits right in with what he said. Seems perfectly clear. Now if he was speaking and introducing new concepts left and right, as the ISI people seem to do, I'd hope that he elucidated the concepts a bit more (or that a transcript would become available so I could see what I missed when I was thinking :-). But (in my case, at least) this concept is an old familiar one: compilation (including partial compilation) as a form of partial evaluation. Technically, you could consider any constructed J verb as compiled, with a probable exception in the case of : and ". That reminds me. Has anyone besides me noticed that the transitive form of | is the same as the transitive form of #: (except for rank). Has anyone noticed any other verbs which differ only in rank? Raul Rockwell