^t.
%@!
*:t.
{&0 0 1 0x@(3&<.)
Raul,
Why are you expecting the more complex result from `^t.`?
And btw, the result from *: is striking to me because of the x in it. At first
I thought it was for the left argument, but the realized it is to force
precision.
---
(B=)
On Oct 29, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In this case, it's doing this:
>
> ^ t.
> %@!
>
> the dictionary definition suggests that we should instead be getting
> something like this:
>
> %@! :(^ * %@!@])"0
>
> I'm not sure, though, what good that extra complexity would achieve.
> It's possible, for example, that that text for the dyadic case of a
> taylor verb was a half formed thought and what would be useful is
> something related-but-different.
>
> --
> Raul
>
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Richard Vaughan <rlvaug...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> Not missing any important concept! Clearly the valuation at x can easily be
>> done as you suggest. I was just looking through some J primitives that I
>> had not used much and came upon this discrepancy between the vocabulary page
>> and the behavior of the verb in question. Probably the vocabulary was
>> wrong, and the verb itself does something not so easily replaceable with a
>> short definition. But I can't figure out exactly what it is doing.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
