2,963
edits
Talk:Frame agreement: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Some thoughts on frame agreement vs. prefix agreement
m (Add heading) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
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) | 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) | ||
:Which line, "It is more general than [[Prefix agreement]], which applies only to scalar functions"? I don't think I removed that, and history shows it appearing only after my last edit. Also, I believe BQN's conformability rule for the rank operator is identical to J's. It matches what's described in this page at least. The difference is only that J has function rank, so rank is built into some primitives. | |||
:I've felt a little weird about this page, and I think the reason is that it ties together the things that are subject to agreement (frames) with how they agree (prefixes) even though they're independent. SHARP has function rank just like J, but based on SAX documentation it only ever had empty-frame agreement and not leading-axis. The title could be made more specific, but my preference would be to make this page on frame conformability generally and indicate that the examples use a specific kind. Fine with linking to and from leading-axis pages regardless of the decision here. --[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] ([[User talk:Marshall|talk]]) 17:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) | |||