[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Zsbán Ambrus ambrus at math.bme.hu
> Fri Sep 12 18:07:12 HKT 2008
...
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 09:43, 0j1 <j at asteroid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
}. {. "1 > |.&.> a
5 8
Now wait, there you're using the full power of the (@) conjunction.
Writing (&.:) instead of (&.) wouldn't work in that, right?
Agreed, if &. is used, then @ might as well be used instead (and using
|.&.> is probably not very efficient).
3 : '{: > y'"0 }. a
5 8
Yes, that does work, but I think it's easier to write it tacitly:
instead of (3 :'{: > y'"0) you can use ({:@:>"0) and that's just a
step away from ({:@>). But you already know that as you say
Yes, I would choose:
{:@>@:}. a
5 8
Sometimes it's easier to put together an explicit verb interactively,
then convert it to tacit later for performance and elegance. It's harder
to write tacit code than explicit and harder to debug it when it doesn't
work.
I wouldn't usually embed 3 : '...' directly into the expression, though.
([: {: >)"0 }. a
5 8
Thanks for the reply.
Ambrus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
