On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
<[email protected]> wrote:
> So far no solution is transforming T into U and perhaps emulating U is what
> was meant, as in
> Raul's solution T(4 :'<y`:0 x'"_ 0&).
I don't understand what you mean here.
How was my solution "not U"?
What is the difference between being U and emulating U?
I think the distinction you are drawing here has to do with
replicating some functionality in each cell of the table of verbs, but
if that's the case I don't know why it's important. Those approaches
take more code to implement and also result in a table with different
cells.
Put differently, `:0 was the probably the right approach - the problem
was that the verbs were not conformable. Fixing the "problem" means
changing the verbs or changing the environment in which they operate.
If you're going to change the verbs, I'd change them from the start,
or I'd use something like:
T =: 2 2 $ +/`|:`|.`(-/ .*)
Tfixed=: 3 :'{.''''`(<@(y`:0))'"0 T
Tfixed`:0 i. 2 2
+---+---+
|2 4|0 2|
| |1 3|
+---+---+
|2 3|_2 |
|0 1| |
+---+---+
So...
Would you consider Tfixed`:0 as being U?
Thanks,
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
