Talk:Frame agreement: Difference between revisions
(Some thoughts about linking between the Frame Agreement and Leading Axis Agreement pages) |
m (Add heading) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:I had temporarily rolled back that edit because, in it, I had inadvertently replaced some of Marshall's edits. Nicer version is now back with relevant edits included. [[User:⊂⍺m|⊂⍺m]] ([[User talk:⊂⍺m|talk]]) 23:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | :I had temporarily rolled back that edit because, in it, I had inadvertently replaced some of Marshall's edits. Nicer version is now back with relevant edits included. [[User:⊂⍺m|⊂⍺m]] ([[User talk:⊂⍺m|talk]]) 23:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
== Some thoughts on frame agreement vs. prefix agreement == | |||
Just thought I'd offer some thoughts for potential discussion here. | |||
To Marshall: I'm wondering about the motivation for removing the line comparing frame agreement with the scalar-dyadic "leading axis agreement" shared among BQN and J. Personally I naively misunderstood the leading axis agreement page to be showing how J's general frame agreement works. That page does clearly state that LA applies only to scalar dyadic functions, but this alone doesn't make it clear that J has a more general conformance rule. I realized my mistake only upon encountering an example that would've produced a length error in BQN, but gave a result in J (if I recall correctly). I'm thinking this will be a common issue for others as well. | To Marshall: I'm wondering about the motivation for removing the line comparing frame agreement with the scalar-dyadic "leading axis agreement" shared among BQN and J. Personally I naively misunderstood the leading axis agreement page to be showing how J's general frame agreement works. That page does clearly state that LA applies only to scalar dyadic functions, but this alone doesn't make it clear that J has a more general conformance rule. I realized my mistake only upon encountering an example that would've produced a length error in BQN, but gave a result in J (if I recall correctly). I'm thinking this will be a common issue for others as well. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 13: | ||
As such, my motivations for creating a separate frame agreement page were 1.) to disambiguate between the two conformance rules, making it clear that J has a conformance rule that extends beyond scalar dyadic functions, and 2.) to explain J's agreement rules more clearly and simply than the NuVoc page does. | As such, my motivations for creating a separate frame agreement page were 1.) to disambiguate between the two conformance rules, making it clear that J has a conformance rule that extends beyond scalar dyadic functions, and 2.) to explain J's agreement rules more clearly and simply than the NuVoc page does. | ||
Any general objections to linking from the FA page to the LA page, and vice versa? Or anything particular that | Any general objections to linking from the FA page to the LA page, and vice versa? Or anything particular that you’re thinking may not be so good about stating "frame agreement generalizes prefix agreement," with a link there? [[User:⊂⍺m|⊂⍺m]] ([[User talk:⊂⍺m|talk]]) 00:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:06, 10 July 2023
Intentional rollback?
Was the rollback at 20:57, 8 July 2023 really intentional. At a glance, the older version seems nicer. Adám Brudzewsky 01:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- I had temporarily rolled back that edit because, in it, I had inadvertently replaced some of Marshall's edits. Nicer version is now back with relevant edits included. ⊂⍺m (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Some thoughts on frame agreement vs. prefix agreement
Just thought I'd offer some thoughts for potential discussion here.
To Marshall: I'm wondering about the motivation for removing the line comparing frame agreement with the scalar-dyadic "leading axis agreement" shared among BQN and J. Personally I naively misunderstood the leading axis agreement page to be showing how J's general frame agreement works. That page does clearly state that LA applies only to scalar dyadic functions, but this alone doesn't make it clear that J has a more general conformance rule. I realized my mistake only upon encountering an example that would've produced a length error in BQN, but gave a result in J (if I recall correctly). I'm thinking this will be a common issue for others as well.
As such, my motivations for creating a separate frame agreement page were 1.) to disambiguate between the two conformance rules, making it clear that J has a conformance rule that extends beyond scalar dyadic functions, and 2.) to explain J's agreement rules more clearly and simply than the NuVoc page does.
Any general objections to linking from the FA page to the LA page, and vice versa? Or anything particular that you’re thinking may not be so good about stating "frame agreement generalizes prefix agreement," with a link there? ⊂⍺m (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)