Before }:: makes sense, boxed memory management would need to be a lot more efficient.
But even higher priority than that are various things that can cause J to crash. -- Raul On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think it's necessary to rebuild the atomic rep of the verb. You > could just compose the function directly. > > Nevertheless, it does remind me of the absence of }:: in the language, and > I wonder why it was never implemented. > > Performance questions aside, the definition of the adverb should be > straightforward? (ok, also ignoring the need or possibility of a gerundial > argument a-la (f`g`h)} ). > > > Please excuse typos; sent from a phone. > > > On Jun 14, 2014, at 4:35 PM, "'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > The approach with ar looked promising, and I made perhaps a poor > implementation: > > > > lexset2 =: 2 : ('(n) =: u(y&) ar';'y') > > lex2 =: 1 : 0 > > a =. m~ 5!:0 y > > (m) =: <@:(0&{ , <@:((<(,'0');a) & (0}) )@:>@:(1&{))@:> m~ > > a > > ) > > > > + lexset2 'g' 1 > > 1 > > 'g' lex2 2 > > 3 > > 'g' lex2 2 > > 5 > > > > >:@:[ lexset2 'g' 0 > > 0 > > 'g' lex2 2 > > 1 > > 'g' lex2 2 > > 2 > > > > but its slow: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
