On Feb 24, 9:56 am, "Stevan Apter" <encryptednos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "William James" <w_a_x_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
messagenews: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.
So what you posted as the k program was not the complete
k program.
> did mark have this feature in his
> Qi version?
No.
>
>
>
> >> 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;]}
So what you posted as the k program was not the complete
k program.
Mark Tarver was led to believe that the complete program
was 3 lines.
Perhaps the complete k program would be something like
P:{(y,x,z)(x,y)?z}[`$("you";"your";"yourself";"i'm";"i am");`$
("i";"my";"myself";"you are";"you're")]
e:{$[(#b)=i:(|/'b:(w@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(w:(`$" "\:x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
in".?"))in`)in\:/:A)?1b;E@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" "~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:{while[count r:read0 0;-1"? ",e r;]}
> >> 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. :-)
The purpose of having multiple replies is to put off
repetition as long as possible.
|
