Looks good to me.
Why not t=:,{. ?
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> t=:,0&{.
>
> The above seems like a simpler way to reshape items of an array if
> necessary. Then I becomes
>
> I=:(t i. t~) f.
>
> If catenate (,) had special code to recognize that if one argument to
> catenate had no items and the shape of it were such that the other argument
> would not be changed and simply pass it on, then t should take very little
> time and space if reshaping were unnecessary. But if the added time to
> handle the special code for other forms of catinate were significant this
> would not be a good idea.
>
> It seems to me that the expression t is simple enough that it could be
> used with i. when needed instead of extending the definition of i. .
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
--
(B=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
