3 ms·
In this case i. is monadic because the thing to the left (>:) is a verb(function). It can get ugly because J has weird precedence/associative rules to let it be
by Avshalom 10y ago
In this case i. is monadic because the thing to the left (>:) is a verb(function). It can get ugly because J has weird precedence/associative rules to let it be tacit but this isn't one of those cases
>: Is monadic because I guess " is special? And has a higher precedence than other things?
- avmich 10y ago" is conjunction, it binds to its arguments - in this case left FB and right 0 - stronger than those bind to their arguments. >: is verb, i. another verb, so >: i. 100 is understood as >: (i. (100)) - as two monadic (one-argument) functions applied sequentially. To the left of that application sits the next verb - FB"0 which applied next, so the whole thing is FB"0 (>: (i. (100))) Precedence/associative rules are: all verbs from right to left, all adverbs/conjunctions from left to right, adverbs/conjunctions are higher by precedence than verbs. That's it.
- Avshalom 10y ago>Precedence/associative ... That's it. Until you get to hooks and forks.
- avmich 10y agoWell, we also didn't mention foreigns (like, functions dealing with OS), punctuation, predefined nouns. Hooks and forks also deserve a description, even though I don't think this is about "precedence/associative" matter - both hooks and forks as a whole are verbs, so verbs rules apply.