I don't know why ([:-.-:)"0/ ?2 100000$10 is slower than (-.@:-:)"0/ ?2 100000$10. To find the answer I'd have to look at the code. I am not surprised that they run at different speeds because [:-.-: and -.@:-: are implemented by different code.
+/@:, requires less space than [:+/, because the former is recognized as special code but the latter isn't. There is a section of code for atop and another one for fork, including capped forks, and it is in those codes that special codes are recognized. More specifically, +/@:,x is recognized when it is interpreting +/@:, , not when it eventually sees the x. That is, if you say sumravel=:+/@:, and then apply sumravel multiple times, the special code recognition happens only once. Given that, you can readily imagine, I think, how differences can arise in such a thing as special code recognition and thence in performance. On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Thomas Costigliola <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM, km <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Roger provides a motivation for capped fork in his Wiki essay Capped > Fork: > > > > > > > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Capped%20Fork?highlight=%28completeness%29 > > > > He says, "When [: g h is interpreted as g@:h , it means that > > "everything" can be expressed as a fork (ordinary and capped)." > > > > However, it appears that [: g h is not always interpreted as g@:h. Two > simple examples: > > 10 (6!:2) '([:-.-:)"0/ ?2 100000$10' > 0.02305822671099 > 10 (6!:2) '(-.@:-:)"0/ ?2 100000$10' > 0.003745674810987 > > (7!:2) '([:+/,) i.2#1000' > 12584512 > (7!:2) '(+/@:,) i.2#1000' > 8390272 > > I wonder if there is a reason for that, i.e., should they not always be > interpreted the same because they are not according to the dictionary? Or > if it was an oversight. > > > I hope this teaser will make you eager to see his essay! > > > > --Kip Murray > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > A teaser cap is the exception to the > > >> > > >> rule, [: is the only verb that is not invoked when is the leading verb > > in a > > >> fork, for no compelling reason (again, from my viewpoint). > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
