"William James" <w_a_x_man@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:cfd9901a-3105-43dd-9f88-caad3a13c21e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Stevan Apter wrote:
>> yes it does.
>
> What does what? Please don't top-post.
>
>>
>> prompts:
>>
>> e"hi. i'm going to be your worst nightmare"
>> e"i think you're full of it."
>> e"my mother told me so."
>> e"no. you tell me about yours."
>> e"you're obviously retarded."
>> e"damn your eyes!"
>> e"understand a kick in the pants?"
>> e"i always ignore idiots."
>> e"i am afraid of dinosaurs"
>>
>> responses:
>>
>> "have you always been going to be my worst nightmare?
>> "why do you think i am full of it?"
>> "tell me about your mother."
>> "please don't be so personal."
>> "can you elaborate on that?"
>> "can you elaborate on that?"
>> "that's very interesting. do go on."
>> "why do you always ignore idiots?"
>> "have you always been afraid of dinosaurs?"
>
> The K (not the Q) program was:
>
> e:{$[(#b)=i:(|/'b:(w@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(w:(`$" "\:x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
in".?"))in`)in\:/:A)?1b;E@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> #E
> " "~n:c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(c:{x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
i)ss/:N;c
> .q.ssr[c;n;" "/:$(),P'(w[k],p:1_'(0,1+k:b[i]?1b)_`,w)"I"$n]]}
>
> I don't see "you", "your", "my", "myself", "yourself", etc.
> So how can it change "your" to "my"?
> I was talking about the K program; you're talking about the Q program.
both the k and the q program use P. did mark have this feature in his
Qi version?
>
>>
>> a few observations:
>>
>> the 'i' function gives you prompt-and-respond in the console by
>> call 'e' until the user gives no prompt:
>>
>> i:{while[count r:read0 0;-1"? ",e r;]}
>
> I was talking about the K program; you're talking about the Q program.
activate the k script with: while[#r:0:0;-1"? ",e r]
>
>>
>> the 'P' function maps first- and second-person:
>>
>> P:{(y,x,z)(x,y)?z}.`$(("you";"your";"yourself";"i'm";"i
am");("i";"my";"myself";"you are";"you're"))
>
> So this will change "your" to "my". Will it, like the Ruby program,
> change "my" to "your"?
yes, as should be obvious by inspecting the sample i/o above.
>
>>
>> instead of rotating multiple-responses, the k version picks a
>> response randomly from the set. this is less predictable than
>> rotation.
>
> That has the defect of possibly repeating the same response
> immediately instead of cycling through all of the responses
> before repeating.
unlike humans, who never repeat themselves. :-)
>
>>
>> but i'm not surprised that the ruby version is so small. it's
>> a nice language, and i like the enthusiasm of its practitioners.
>>
>> "William James" <w_a_x_man@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:a404c407-ac00-4665-9f49-6bca822c1239@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > On Feb 24, 6:06 am, Mark Tarver <dr.mtar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> Sorry I missed a couple of later attempts
>> >>
>> >> Lisp 150 LOC ................ Peter Norvig
>> >> Qi (slightly revised) 63 LOC .................Mark Tarver
>> >> Ruby 53 LOC .................William James
>> >> Q 10 LOC ..................Steven Apter
>> >> K 3 LOC ...................Steven Apter
>> >> Ruby (again) 17 LOC ...................William James
>> >> Mathematica 20 LOC .................. Szabolcs
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >
>> > The K version doesn't do everything that the Ruby
>> > versions do. It doesn't change "I" in the user's
>> > response to "you" when throwing it back at the user,
>> > for example.
>> >
>> > When there are multiple possible replies to a user's
>> > input, the Ruby program rotates those replies so that
>> > not one will be repeated until all have been used.
|
