If an expression is giving you an error which you do not understand,
you might want to isolate the error. But describing this process
might not make sense, so perhaps I should show you instead:
This will be a bit long, so feel free to skip over the boring parts:
+:`]@.([: -. ".&'flag1_z_'"_) i. 20
|rank error
| +:`]@.([:-.".&'flag1_z_'"_)i.20
([: -. ".&'flag1_z_'"_) i. 20
|rank error
| ([:-.".&'flag1_z_'"_)i.20
(".&'flag1_z_'"_) i. 20
|rank error
| (".&'flag1_z_'"_)i.20
(".&'flag1_z_'"_) 0
0
(".&'flag1_z_'"_) 0 1
|rank error
| (".&'flag1_z_'"_)0 1
(".&'flag'"_) 0 1
|rank error
| (".&'flag'"_)0 1
(".&'fl'"_) 0 1
|rank error
| (".&'fl'"_)0 1
(".&'f'"_) 0 1
|rank error
| (".&'f'"_)0 1
(".&'f') 0 1
|rank error
| (".&'f')0 1
0 1 ".&'f'
|syntax error
| 0 1".&'f'
0 1 ". 'f'
|rank error
| 0 1 ".'f'
0 1 ". 'fl'
|rank error
| 0 1 ".'fl'
At this point, I think I've shown that it's likely that the rank error
is coming from ". so perhaps its dictionary page would be interesting:
http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/d601.htm
If you need further hints, we can try to provide them.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Pascal Jasmin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I was not thinking about performance when I was rewriting them but theseare
>> the numbers I get...
>
> I tried making a version with @. to see, and this compiles
>
> if =. (`])(@.([: -. ".&'flag1_z_'"_)) NB. same results as @: replacing capped
> fork below
>
> and looks right with
>
> +: if
> +:`]@.(-.@:".&'flag1_z_'"_)
>
> but:
> +: if i.20
> |rank error
> | +:if i.20
>
> and:
>
> +: if("0) i.20
> |index error
> | +:if("0)i.20
>
> I don't understand the reason for either error.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 11:10:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Bug in adverb define
>
> I was not thinking about performance when I was rewriting them but these
> are the numbers I get...
>
> NB.Performance
>
> st=. 7!:2@:] ; 6!:2
>
> NB. Explicitly...
>
> controlA_z_ =: 1 : 0
> flag1_z_ =: 1
> o=. u y
> flag1_z_ =: 0
> o
> )
>
> ifC=: 1 : 'if. flag1_z_ do. u y else. y end.'
>
> ( test=: +: ifC )
> +: (1 : 'if. flag1_z_ do. u y else. y end.')
>
> ( test"0 controlA )
> (test"0) (1 : 0)
> flag1_z_ =: 1
> o=. u y
> flag1_z_ =: 0
> o
> )
>
> 10 st 'test"0 i.100000' NB. 8794368 is very puzzling!
> ┌───────┬────────┐
> │8794368│0.249716│
> └───────┴────────┘
> 10 st 'test"0 controlA i.100000'
> ┌───────┬────────┐
> │1052544│0.249951│
> └───────┴────────┘
> 10 st 'test controlA"0 i.100000'
> ┌───────┬────────┐
> │1052544│0.583864│
> └───────┴────────┘
>
> test"0 i.10
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
> test"0 controlA i.10
> 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
> test controlA"0 i.10
> 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
>
> NB. Tacitly...
>
> ifC=. ^: (". @: ('flag1_z_'"_))
>
> ( test=: +: ifC )
> +:^:(".@:('flag1_z_'"_))
>
> controlA_z_=. (`'' (&,) (@:(,&<)) ((([ ".@:('flag1_z_=:
> 0'"_))@:((((<'`:') (0:`)(,^:)&6))@:(0&{ , <@:((,'0') ,&< ])@:(1&{::)))@:([
> ".@:('flag1_z_=: 1'"_)))@:))
>
> ( test"0 controlA )
> ((([ (".@:('flag1_z_=: 0'"_)))@:(((,^:((0:)``:))&6)@:((0&{) , ((<@:((,'0')
> (,&<) ]))@:(1&({::))))))@:([ (".@:('flag1_z_=:
> 1'"_))))@:(((,<(<,'"'),<(<'test'),<(,'0');0)&,)@:(,&<))
>
> 10 st 'test"0 i.100000'
> ┌───────┬────────┐
> │1050560│0.120329│
> └───────┴────────┘
> 10 st 'test"0 controlA i.100000'
> ┌───────┬────────┐
> │1576832│0.124354│
> └───────┴────────┘
> 10 st 'test controlA"0 i.100000'
> ┌───────┬───────┐
> │1052416│0.71766│
> └───────┴───────┘
>
> test"0 i.10
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
> test"0 controlA i.10
> 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
> test controlA"0 i.10
> 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Pascal Jasmin <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> btw, your tacit definition of ifC (and test) is twice as fast as the
>> explicit one when applied to 0 cells.
>>
>> 10 ts 'test1"0 controlA i.100000' -- tacit ^: (". @: ('flag1_z_'"_))
>> 7.74526/sec 2.10483MB
>> 10 ts 'test"0 controlA i.100000' -- explicit 1 : 'if. flag1_z_ do. u
>> y else. y end.'
>> 4.18765/sec 2.10598MB
>> 10 ts 'test1"0 i.100000'
>> 8.76733/sec 2.10099MB
>> 10 ts 'test"0 i.100000'
>>
>> 4.11696/sec 16.5399MB
>>
>> I assume that it is because the if. structure is just slower rather than
>> the J engine not being able to peek inside. The explicit version is 50%
>> faster on "_ rank though, probably because the explicit one is evaluated
>> once. The tacit version of controlA seems slower than the explicit one,
>> probably because it does so much.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]>
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 2:01:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Bug in adverb define
>>
>> > An improvement I'm not sure is possible would be to modify controlA
>> and/or
>> > ifC to not access y, ie. be tacit.
>>
>> Sure it is; as far as I know, an explicit adverb (or verb) always can be
>> rewritten tacitly, in theory.
>>
>>
>> controlA_z_ =: 1 : 0
>> flag1_z_ =: 1
>> o=. u y
>> flag1_z_ =: 0
>> o
>> )
>>
>> ifC=: 1 : 'if. flag1_z_ do. u y else. y end.'
>>
>> ( test=: +: ifC )
>> +: (1 : 'if. flag1_z_ do. u y else. y end.')
>>
>> test controlA a=. 1 2 3
>> 2 4 6
>> test a=. 1 2 3
>> 1 2 3
>>
>> test@:(+/%#) 1 2 3
>> 2
>> test@:(+/%#) controlA 1 2 3
>> 4
>> test (+/%#) controlA 1 2 3
>> 2
>>
>>
>> In practice, it can be easy,
>>
>> ifC=. ^: (". @: ('flag1_z_'"_))
>>
>> ( test=: +: ifC )
>> +:^:(".@:('flag1_z_'"_))
>>
>> or it can be difficult but not nearly as difficult as it should be (so to
>> speak),
>>
>>
>> Force=. (0:`)(,^:) NB. May the Force be with you
>> train=. (<'`:') (Force (&6))
>> an=. <@:((,'0') ,&< ]) NB. Atomizing a noun
>> core=. ([ ".@:('flag1_z_=: 0'"_))@:(train@:(0&{ , an@:(1&{::)))@:([
>> ".@:('flag1_z_=: 1'"_))
>>
>> controlA=. `'' (&,) (@:(,&<)) (core@:) NB. A train of adverbs
>>
>> test controlA a=. 1 2 3
>> 2 4 6
>> test a=. 1 2 3
>> 1 2 3
>>
>> test@:(+/%#) 1 2 3
>> 2
>> test@:(+/%#) controlA 1 2 3
>> 4
>> test (+/%#) controlA 1 2 3
>> 2
>>
>> controlA=. (`'' (&,) (@:(,&<)) ((([ ".@:('flag1_z_=: 0'"_))@:((((<'`:')
>> (0:`)(,^:)&6))@:(0&{ , <@:((,'0') ,&< ])@:(1&{::)))@:([ ".@:('flag1_z_=:
>> 1'"_)))@:))
>> NB. The adverb as a long self-contained one-liner (fixed manually to
>> avoid the linear representation bug)
>>
>> test controlA a=. 1 2 3
>> 2 4 6
>> test a=. 1 2 3
>> 1 2 3
>>
>> test@:(+/%#) 1 2 3
>> 2
>> test@:(+/%#) controlA 1 2 3
>> 4
>> test (+/%#) controlA 1 2 3
>> 2
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Pascal Jasmin <[email protected]
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks very much.
>> >
>> > In terms of usefulness,
>> > ifC=: 1 : 'if. flag1_z_ do. u y else. y end.'
>> > pD =: smoutput ifC
>> > test=: +: ifC
>> >
>> > test controlA a=. 1 2 3
>> > 2 4 6
>> > test a=. 1 2 3
>> > 1 2 3
>> >
>> > The pD verb can produce verbose output for debugging only when asked.
>> >
>> > 2 points to a single line:
>> > 1. eliminates 11 lines of irritating clutter that I don't want to see.
>> > 2. If I or someone else copies just the definition without the
>> > initialization variable into a new project, in someone's lifetime, I/they
>> > will get a domain error, and will either hate the function or their lives
>> > because of it. I might make this error more likely to occur by
>> > inadvertantly inserting code between the function and the initialization.
>> >
>> > An improvement I'm not sure is possible would be to modify controlA
>> and/or
>> > ifC to not access y, ie. be tacit.
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Raul Miller <[email protected]>
>> > To: General forum <[email protected]>
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 1:25:06 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Bug in adverb define
>> >
>> > It's not at all clear to me why doing this kind of thing on "one line"
>> > is useful.
>> >
>> > That said, this example of yours:
>> >
>> > flag1_z_ =: 0 [ controlA_z_ =: 1 : ('flag1_z_ =: 1';'o=. u
>> > y';'flag1_z_ =: 0';'o')
>> >
>> > has this grammar:
>> >
>> > name =: noun verb name =: noun conjunction noun
>> >
>> > Which, simplifies to
>> >
>> > name =: noun verb adverb
>> >
>> > In other words, you are executing controlA with u defined as [ which
>> > then simplifies to
>> >
>> > name =: noun verb
>> >
>> > and that's just bad grammar. A simple transformation which would make
>> > it grammatically correct would be:
>> >
>> > name =: verb noun
>> >
>> > and... projecting this back into your original sentence, it would become
>> >
>> > flag1_z_ =: ([ controlA_z_ =: 1 : ('flag1_z_ =: 1';'o=. u
>> > y';'flag1_z_ =: 0';'o')) 0
>> >
>> > However, since I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish, I
>> > have no idea if this is relevant to your efforts.
>> >
>> > FYI,
>> >
>> > --
>> > Raul
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Pascal Jasmin <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > thank you. I'm still not able to combine into one line (which IIUC can
>> > be done with verb defines)
>> > > flag1_z_ =: 0 [ controlA_z_ =: 1 : ('flag1_z_ =: 1';'o=. u
>> y';'flag1_z_
>> > =: 0';'o')
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > btw, The dyad version define is:
>> > > (flag1_z_ =: 0) [ controlA_z_ =: 1 : ('flag1_z_ =: 1';'o=. u
>> > y';'flag1_z_ =: 0';'o';':';'flag1_z_ =: 1';'o=. x u y';'flag1_z_ =:
>> 0';'o')
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > From: Don Guinn <[email protected]>
>> > > To: General forum <[email protected]>
>> > > Cc:
>> > > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 12:18:34 PM
>> > > Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Bug in adverb define
>> > >
>> > > Need to add parens.
>> > >
>> > > controlA_z_ =: 1 : ('flag1_z_ =: 1';'o=. u y';'flag1_z_ =: 0';'o')
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Pascal Jasmin <[email protected]
>> > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> The following in a script should work according to
>> > >> http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dicth.htm
>> > >> flag1_z_ =: 0
>> > >> controlA_z_ =: 1 : 'flag1_z_ =: 1';'o=. u y';'flag1_z_ =: 0';'o'
>> > >>
>> > >> It results in a syntax error script in J7. The syntax error can be
>> > >> eliminated by changing 1 : to 3 :
>> > >>
>> > >> The adverb (and definition) works as a 4 line definition. Its purpose
>> > is
>> > >> to send control flags to a verb which changes its behaviour if called
>> > with
>> > >> the adverb. The importance of getting it on one line is that
>> supporting
>> > >> dyads would take a multiline definition 10 lines with the ending ),
>> and
>> > its
>> > >> the type of utility function that can be cloned to control2A control3A
>> > and
>> > >> so, single line definitions are more reusable.
>> > >>
>> > >> The multiline version is:
>> > >> controlA_z_ =: 1 : 0
>> > >> flag1_z_ =: 1
>> > >> o=. u y
>> > >> flag1_z_ =: 0
>> > >> o
>> > >> )
>> > >>
>> > >> Ideally I'd like to be able to write a definition line such as:
>> > >>
>> > >> flag1_z_ =: 0 [ controlA_z_ =: 1 : 'flag1_z_ =: 1';'o=. u y';'flag1_z_
>> > =:
>> > >> 0';'o'
>> > >>
>> > >> (which does load if '1 :' changed to '3 :')
>> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> 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
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
