Maybe this is just a way to deal with fill behaviour? In which case, 2 cases to remember is easier than three. Sounds like this is a deliberate choice. Does this come across from APL?
(0 $ 0),!._. (i.2 2) _. _. 0 1 2 3 (1 $ 0),!._. (i.2 2) 0 _. 0 1 2 3 On 11 January 2013 17:14, Roger Hui <rogerhui.can...@gmail.com> wrote: > Try this: if you join a length-m vector to a length-n vector, the > resultant vector has length m+n. Make sense? The statement remains true > when m or n or both are 0. > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Steven Taylor <tayl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > thanks for the reply. I can see that this is consistent for rank 2 and > > above. The rank 1 case is the bit that isn't making sense to me right > now. > > > > (n$0) , i. 2 [ n=: 0 > > 0 1 > > (n$0) , i. 2 [ n=: 1 > > 0 0 1 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
