Here's another example of my suggestion:
These two expressions have the same result.
eb=: 13 :'y $<'' '''
([:<eb)"1(>:i.2),"0/>:i.4
----T-----T-------T---------┐
│--┐│--T-┐│--T-T-┐│--T-T-T-┐│
││ │││ │ │││ │ │ │││ │ │ │ ││
│L--│L-+--│L-+-+--│L-+-+-+--│
+---+-----+-------+---------+
│--┐│--T-┐│--T-T-┐│--T-T-T-┐│
││ │││ │ │││ │ │ │││ │ │ │ ││
│+-+│+-+-+│+-+-+-+│+-+-+-+-+│
││ │││ │ │││ │ │ │││ │ │ │ ││
│L--│L-+--│L-+-+--│L-+-+-+--│
L---+-----+-------+----------
([:<eb)"1(>:i.2),"0/>:i.4
----T-----T-------T---------┐
│--┐│--T-┐│--T-T-┐│--T-T-T-┐│
││ │││ │ │││ │ │ │││ │ │ │ ││
│L--│L-+--│L-+-+--│L-+-+-+--│
+---+-----+-------+---------+
│--┐│--T-┐│--T-T-┐│--T-T-T-┐│
││ │││ │ │││ │ │ │││ │ │ │ ││
│+-+│+-+-+│+-+-+-+│+-+-+-+-+│
││ │││ │ │││ │ │ │││ │ │ │ ││
│L--│L-+--│L-+-+--│L-+-+-+--│ L---+-----+-------+----------
Define each one as I and j
i=: 13 :'(<@eb)"1(>:@i.x),"0/>:@i.y'
j=: 13 :'([:<eb)"1(>:i.x),"0/>:i.y'
Both agree as monads and dyads.
(i 2)-:j 2
1
(2 i 4)-:2 j 4
1
In the interpretation of J, [: is inserted when appropriate.
My question is: "why couldn't both have the same
Definition when trains are involved. It @ is superior, I would suggest the
definition of i
for both.
eb
(<' ') $~ ]
i
[: <@eb"1 ([: >:@i. [) ,"0/ [: >:@i. ]
j
[: ([: < eb)"1 ([: >: [: i. [) ,"0/ [: >: [: i. ]
Linda
eb
(<' ') $~ ]
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kip Murray
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2015 11:00 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Source of frustration
And this:
hh =: 3 : '[: >: i. y'
hh
3 : '[: >: i. y'
hh 4
|domain error: hh
| [:>:i.y
I think Brian's suggestion that you parenthesize the result of 13 : before
applying arguments is the best way of removing your frustration. My point
about parenthsizing [: > i. before applying arguments is specific to verbs
defined by trains.
--Kip
On Monday, February 9, 2015, Linda Alvord < <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]> wrote:
> How about this:
> h=: 13 :'[:>:i.y'
> h
> [: [: [: >: i.
>
> [: [: [: >: i. 4
> |domain error: scriptd
> | [:[: [:>:i.4
>
> Linda
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected] <javascript:;>
> [ <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cjavascript:;%3e>
mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>] On
> Behalf Of Brian Schott
> Sent: Monday, February 9, 2015 10:00 AM
> To: Programming forum
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Source of frustration
>
> Linda,
>
> If you are willing to put parentheses around your example verbs --
> with the data outside the parens, you will not get the domain error.
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Linda Alvord <[email protected]
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Suppose: ff=: 13 :'>:i.y'
> > ff
> > >:@i.
> > Then:
> > >:@i.4
> > 1 2 3 4
> > Which is what you want, more than a domain error.
> >
> > Linda
> >
> > --
> (B=)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see <http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm>
http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see <http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm>
http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see <http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm>
http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
