> These results points to either a "bug" in both interpreters or a > mystery...
There is no bug in the J interpreter in this regard. i.~i taking 0.065 and i.~f (and f i. f) taking 2.826 are legitimate. i. on floats with non-zero tolerance is a harder problem and does take more time to solve. ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, June 1, 2007 11:14 am Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Re: Challenge to expert J'ers > RH> I suggest you try the benchmarks in > RH> http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Index_in_Nub > RH> in APL. > > I just did ( a simplified version) and there is definitively a > major > problem with the dyadic iota of Dyalog APL. > These results points to either a "bug" in both interpreters or a > mystery... > It seems to me that APL implementers of Dyalog would be best to > require > your services for dyadic iota for float... > Here are the results (all tests done on my PC, Dell OptiPlex > GX270, > Processor x86 Family 15 Model 2 Stepping 9 GenuineIntel > ~2593 Mhz > > i=:2e5$1e5?2e9 > f=:i%i+0.1 > J J 6.01 APL Dyalog 10.0.2 > Integer .i~i 0.065 i{iota}i 0.109 > Float .i~f 2.826 f{iota}f 1402.875 > > Can anyone confirm these results and add other APL implementations > if they > so have ? > Roger ! How can we explain that huge difference between .i~f and > f{iota}f > ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
