Dumping out the 3!:3 of the variant operands would be a starting point.
Henry Rich
On 4/20/2013 1:48 PM, Dan Bron wrote:
A few examples, including objectives, expected and observed results, along with a
description of your operating environment (OS & word size) might be a start,
even if we can't individually reproduce those results.
Here is a release note from J6.02 which announces (potentially relevant)
optimizations in this area:
http://www.jsoftware.com/help/release/underai.htm
To determine if this change is responsible for the symptoms, you might try some
experiments in a pre-J6.02 interpreter. If it is responsible, it's a good bet that
the optimization is implemented in the &. conjunction, so we could start out
investigation in the source code of that primitive.
-Dan
Please excuse typos; composed on a handheld device.
On Apr 20, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
I have been seeing inconsistent results from the dyad
22 b.&.(a.&i.)
I do not have a repeatable test - the variations seem to be path
dependent (same data gives different results depending on how the data
was generated). However, replacing the above dyad with a more verbose
alternative apparently prevented the inconsistencies from occurring.
This smells like buggy special code but it might be some external
dependence (perhaps an uninitialized value?)
Unfortunately, I do not currently have any good ideas for isolating
this problem.
FYI,
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
