Does it make it clearer to write the monadic and dyadic forms together with the
"long-form" of Monad-Dyad? E.g.,
NB. Define a "table" adverb. The monad is reflexive.
h=: 1 : 0
y u/ y
:
x u/ y
)
NB. An example use as a monad.
% h i. 4
0 0 0 0
_ 1 0.5 0.333333
_ 2 1 0.666667
_ 3 1.5 1
NB. An example use as a dyad.
(i. 3) % h i: 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_0.333333 _0.5 _1 _ 1 0.5 0.333333
_0.666667 _1 _2 _ 2 1 0.666667
Raul Miller condenses the dyad form to one line, but that might not make it
easier to read. And if you want both forms, you might as well write them
together.
... peter
On 12/03/13 19:48, Raul Miller wrote:
g=: 1 :(':';'x u /y')
Without the ':' the verb %g is a monad.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Linda Alvord <[email protected]> wrote:
Raul, We've been moving for the last several weeks and I haven't studied this
yet.
It seems odd that f is so simple and g is impossible.
f=: 1 :'y u / y'
a=:%
a f i.4
0 0 0 0
_ 1 0.5 0.333333
_ 2 1 0.666667
_ 3 1.5 1
(i.3)%/i:3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_0.333333 _0.5 _1 _ 1 0.5 0.333333
_0.666667 _1 _2 _ 2 1 0.666667
g=: 1 :'x u /y'
(i.3) a g i:3
|domain error: scriptd
| (i.3) a g i:3
|[-17] c:\users\owner\j801-user\temp\113.ijs
Is there an easy way to write g ?
Linda
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
