Yes, it's architecturally dependent in a minor way. In particular, it would work for J64 for integers. For example, the following would fail in J64: (o.1 0 2) +/ @: * (o.3 2 $ 3 1 2 1 1 0)
The bug in x +/@:* y occurs when: - x and y have a different number of elements. - the argument with a smaller number of elements has a 0. Unless: x and y are integers and the system is J64. (In that case it skips the special and erroneous code.) This has now been fixed. ----- Original Message ----- From: Tikkanz <[email protected]> Date: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:26 Subject: Re: [Jbeta] Nag nag nag nag To: Beta forum <[email protected]> > Seems to work OK for me. Maybe it is architecture/processor dependent? > > JVERSION > Engine: j701/2011-01-07/14:33 > Library: 7.01.030 > Platform: Linux 64 > Installer: j701a_linux64.sh > InstallPath: /usr/local/lib/j64_701 > > 1 0 2 +/ @: * (3 2 $ 3 1 2 1 1 0) > 5 1 > > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 6:10 AM, June Kim (김창준) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Uh-oh. I've been doing financial calculations with J and the > following (old) > > bug report is an alarm for me. Have to look at my codes again. > > > > What is the minimal condition for the bug? > > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Roger Stokes < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Still got this old bug in j701: > >> > >> JVERSION > >> Engine: j701/2011-01-07/14:33 > >> Library: 7.01.030 > >> Platform: Win 32 > >> Installer: j701a_win.exe > >> InstallPath: c:/users/homer/j701 > >> > >> 1 0 2 +/ @: * (3 2 $ 3 1 2 1 1 0) > >> 7 3 > >> > >> NB. The result 7 3 is wrong. > >> NB. The correct result is 5 1, shown by replacing + > >> NB. with an equivalent verb, say +"0 . > >> > >> 1 0 2 +"0 / @: * (3 2 $ 3 1 2 1 1 0) > >> 5 1 > >> > >> NB. This has been mentioned before, firstly > >> NB. by Patrick Van Beek on 14 6 2008. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
