Here's a definition for at which works exactly like @ at=: 2 :'([: u v)"v
For example:' <at i. at > 2 3 4 Now, looking at that, you may think that this means that [: is somehow superior to @ but note that [: is not necessary at=: 2 :'u@:v"v' Note that in J, @: and @ (without the colon) are different words. It's also possible to replace @: with an explicit definition, but that's probably best left for another time. FYI, -- Raul On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Linda Alvord <[email protected]> wrote: > Here’s another, hopefully simpler, example of my problem with @ > > ]a=:?>:i.6 > > 0 1 1 3 1 5 > > ]a=:=a > > 1 0 0 0 0 0 > > 0 1 1 0 1 0 > > 0 0 0 1 0 0 > > 0 0 0 0 0 1 > > ]b=:?>:i.6 > > 0 1 0 3 1 3 > > a #@# b > > 1 3 1 1 > > > > There must be some way to get this result without @ > > > > Here are some of the things I have tried: > > > > NB. x u@v y ↔ u x v y (vocabulary definition of @ > > #a#b > > 4 > > > > NB. ([: f g)"({. g b. 0) <=> f@g (someone on the forum provided this in > an earlier struggle I had with @ ) > > a(([:##)"({.# b. 0))b > > 4 > > > > Both of these definitions appear to describe @: > > a #@:# b > > 4 > > > > Are changes ever made to the definitions in the vocabulary when they are > unclear or incorrect? > > > > Linda > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
