News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on K (2005). Parent comment

Re:K (2005) by jim-jim-jim on Wednesday January 15, 2020 @09:57PM (#22061305)
Thanks for the info. I think J's implicit combinators have made me a better tacit programmer, but over reliance on them can make things frustratingly ambiguous.

The monadic/dyadic overloading in all these langs doesn't always help either. I recall somebody here recently writing a K implementation where there was explicit syntax for the uh... adicity(?) of operators, but I forgot to bookmark it. Anybody know what I'm talking about?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:K (2005) by uryga on Wednesday January 15, 2020 @10:26PM (#22061433)
k (well, some version of it) has something along those lines:

> [the] `:` in `|:` is used to force the verb `|` to be interpreted as a monad, as by default ambiguities are resolved in favour of dyads.

http://www.math.bas.bg/bantchev/place/k.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:K (2005) by tosh on Thursday January 16, 2020 @02:46PM (#22068128)
https://t3x.org/klong/

> Klong is an array language, like K, but without the ambiguity. If you know K or APL, you may be disappointed by Klong. If you don't know any array languages, it might explode your brain. Use at your own risk!

?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:K (2005) by jnordwick on Wednesday January 15, 2020 @10:47PM (#22061522)
> adicity(?) of operators

You will often hear it referred to as the valence of the operator or function from APL people (don't forget niladic too).

Other CS people will call it the arity.

[ Parent | on HN ]