I like that use of (u"v v y). It instructively uncovers the action of (u@v). ...As distinct from (u@:v), which I guess would expand as: (u v y) .
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Brian Schott <[email protected]> wrote: > Would this definition work for monadic case? > > oo_explicated=: 3 : 0 > NB. ((+/) % #) @ ((,&1)"1) > u=: 3 : '(+/ y) % (# y)' NB. [rank: _ _ _] (+/) % # > v=: (3 : 'y , 1')"1 NB. [rank: 1 1 1] (,&1)"1 > u"v v y > ) > oo_explicated i. 3 4 > 1.4 4.6 7.8 > > > -- > (B=) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
