Thanks Pascal - good solution to my incorrect approach. Roger, I am using this with a pareto chart to identify what bin each record would fall under.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_chart I don't need to draw the chart, I just need to know what each record would be classified as: causes =: > ' ' cut each LF cut(0 : 0) Public 47 Weather 28 Oversight 18 Emergency 12 Traffic 5 ChildCare 57 ) vals=. ". > 1}"1 causes runsumpct =: 3 : 0 sorted=. \:~ y vals =. (+/\ % +/) sorted (sorted i. y) { vals ) pct=:runsumpct vals causes,.>each pct ┌─────────┬──┬────────┐ │Public │47│0.622754│ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │Weather │28│0.790419│ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │Oversight│18│0.898204│ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │Emergency│12│0.97006 │ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │Traffic │5 │1 │ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │ChildCare│57│0.341317│ └─────────┴──┴────────┘ (/: pct) { (causes,.>each pct) ┌─────────┬──┬────────┐ │ChildCare│57│0.341317│ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │Public │47│0.622754│ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │Weather │28│0.790419│ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │Oversight│18│0.898204│ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │Emergency│12│0.97006 │ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │Traffic │5 │1 │ └─────────┴──┴────────┘ I suppose I could sort the data before providing it to the function if that helps. You are right that dupes cause problems with using i. to locate the record. Thank you for pointing that out. I don't know how to fix it yet and would welcome any suggestions. causes =: > ' ' cut each LF cut(0 : 0) Public 47 Weather 28 Oversight 18 Emergency 12 Traffic 5 ChildCare 57 XYZ 5 ) (/: pct) { (causes,.>each pct) ┌─────────┬──┬────────┐ │ChildCare│57│0.331395│ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │Public │47│0.604651│ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │Weather │28│0.767442│ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │Oversight│18│0.872093│ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │Emergency│12│0.94186 │ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │Traffic │5 │0.97093 │ ├─────────┼──┼────────┤ │XYZ │5 │0.97093 │ └─────────┴──┴────────┘ On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Roger Hui <[email protected]> wrote: > y > 1 100 5 10 > y,.runsumpct y > 1 1 > 100 0.862069 > 5 0.991379 > 10 0.948276 > > Please provide an English description of the problem being solved. In > particular, I don't understand how the result is "in the original order". > In addition, won't you have a problem if the argument has duplicate > entries? > > t,.runsumpct t=: y,1 1 1 > 1 0.97479 > 100 0.840336 > 5 0.966387 > 10 0.92437 > 1 0.97479 > 1 0.97479 > 1 0.97479 > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Joe Bogner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Is there a cleaner way to write this or is this a reasonable > > implementation? > > > > runsumpct =: 3 : 0 > > > > sorted=: \:~ y > > > > vals =: (+/\ % +/) sorted > > > > (sorted i. y) { vals > > > > ) > > > > > > runsumpct 1 100 5 10 > > > > 1 0.862069 0.991379 0.948276 > > > > > > > > I'm interested if there's a cleaner approach to sorting, operating, and > > then returning the result in the original order. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
