Just remember that there are some pitfalls comparing the special number notations with some of the primitives, e.g. this works:
1j2=j./1 2 1 NB. OK, but 12345678910111213x = x: 12345678910111213 0 12345678910111213x - x: 12345678910111213 1 NB. Conversion/precision issue? 2r3=r./2 3 0 NB. Not even close r./2 3 _1.979985j0.28224002 NB. Different notation for number versus conversion. 1p1=o. 1 1 1p2 = *: o. 1 1 On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:38 PM, David Ward Lambert <[email protected]>wrote: > Whoops! I had ignored these primitives thinking they were merely > alternate ways to write numbers. > > j. Imaginary • Complex > o. Pi Times > r. Angle • Polar > x: Extended Precision > > > From: "Dan Bron" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Jchat] Conversion > To: "'Chat forum'" <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <010901cabf1e$82032a10$86097e...@us> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > David Ward Lambert wrote: > > I'd like to convert rational to float. What, please, is a better > way? > > 1.001 * 2r5 NB. unsatisfying. > > Since x: 2%5 converts 0.4 to 2r5 we might expect that (x:^:_1) > 2r5 would ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- Devon McCormick, CFA ^me^ at acm. org is my preferred e-mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
