Thank you Raul,
if =. (`])(@.([: -. [: ". 'flag1_z_'"_))
2 + if i.10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2 + if controlA i.10
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
+: if controlA i.10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Though looking up ". page helped, what I really needed to do was to recall that:
".&'flag1_z_'"_ was actually u&v and not u&n. u&n would not have been what I
wanted anyway I think, as it would be applying numbers instead of do when run.
On 2nd thought, u&v should still work as hoped, and the above fix is supposed
to be equivalent to @: or &:, but versions with those give a domain error. I
prefer [: to @: anyway (the dyad confusion being the main reason), so no
biggie, but I can't say I understand why @: or &: is failing. (".&'flag1_z_'"_)
________________________________
From: Raul Miller <[email protected]>
To: General forum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 1:20:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Bug in adverb define
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
