"Terrence Brannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm wondering what went on under the hood when I passed an absurd rank > to Floor. Floor by default operates with rank 0 - it takes the floor > of each element. And that is what makes sense. Any other rank is > absurd.
If you apply a small rank to a verb that normally has a large rank, it chops the parameter(s) into small bite-sized pieces, described by the frame(s). If you apply a large rank to a verb that normally has a small rank, it feeds the verb huge parameter(s) all at once - and then the verb chops them up into small pieces internally. Since each application of rank constructs frames (which may be of different ranks, and whose axes are expanded as needed at the right), it is possible to control just which axes are expanded by applying otherwise trivial ranks to the same verb several times. For example: $(i. 1 2 3 4 5 6) +"2 1"4 2 i. 1 3 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 $(i. 1 2 3 4 5 6) +"2 1"5 3 i. 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Of course, this is only useful for dyadic verbs, since monadic verbs never need to implicitly expand parameter axes. For monadic verbs, the spurious rank specification has no effect. The only exception that I know of is with ?. which pretends to be a rank-0 verb, but actually behaves like a rank-_ verb: ?. 2 3 $ 10 6 5 9 2 4 9 ?."0] 2 3 $ 10 6 6 6 6 6 6 ?."1] 2 3 $ 10 6 5 9 6 5 9 ?."2] 2 3 $ 10 6 5 9 2 4 9 -- Mark D. Niemiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
