Long winded is, in this case, a warning. Here, you are doing
unnecessary work because you are patching damage done by a bug without
fixing the bug. In this context it might not seem like much but this
can cause an ongoing chain of complications if you had it in
production code.
The 0 0 $ 0 value can be useful as a contant, but if it's being
generated by code that code should be consistent with the rest of your
code.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Steven Taylor <tayl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> for want of a better verb name.
>
> Here's a long winded way of conditionally converting 0$0 to 0 0$0.
>
> empty=:(<'') = [: < [
> reempty2=:13 : '>(empty x){x;0 0$0' f.
> reempty3=:13 : '>(empty x){x;0 0 0$0' f.
>
>
>
>
> On 14 January 2013 09:38, Steven Taylor <tayl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> thanks for the 0 0$0 comment idea.
>>
>> the bit that caught me was where an empty take comes back as 0 $ 0 from
>> take. The sequence was a little like this.
>>
>> (i.2 2),~ 0$0{i.6 2
>> 0 0
>> 0 1
>> 2 3
>>
>> Just trying to keep it as tacit as possible. i.e. 0$0 could be a list of
>> zero or more indices.
>>
>>
>> On 13 January 2013 21:23, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Note that (0 0$0), i. 2 2 would also work. The trailing dimension
>>> gets expanded, just like in your original case, so the net result is
>>> equivalent to (0 2$0,i. 2 2 which is to say nothing happens.
>>>
>>> But, depending on your situation, 0 0 $ 0 might be more generally
>>> useful than 0 2 $ 0.
>>>
>>> FYI,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Raul
>>>
>>> p.s. sorry about the hijacking
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Steven Taylor <tayl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I think the email thread got hijacked... but a follow up to the original
>>> > join question...
>>> >
>>> > Roger pointed out that I wasn't being logical (i.e. appending rank 1 to
>>> > rank 2 doesn't make sense).
>>> >
>>> > ... and if I do this, I now get back what I expected to see.
>>> >
>>> > (0 2$0), i.2 2
>>> > 0 1
>>> > 2 3
>>> >
>>> > So... I borrowed the idea of q's "reshape" and implemented it in J as a
>>> > helper verb. So far, it seems to be doing the trick.
>>> >
>>> > thanks for the comments and help.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 13 January 2013 02:19, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Linda Alvord <lindaalv...@verizon.net
>>> >
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > As long as the ranks agree, u&v y -> u v y
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Would this be useful as a definition of compose?
>>> >>
>>> >> That is the definition for the monadic case but is incomplete since it
>>> >> does not mention the dyadic case.
>>> >>
>>> >> But note also that the dictionary's vocabulary is a reference work and
>>> >> it has already stated that the ranks must agree. Keep in mind that
>>> >> the dictionary also includes material such as
>>> >> http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/samp13.htm
>>> >>
>>> >> FYI,
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Raul
>>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> 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
>>>
>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
