I think it is always possible to @ instead of [: , but I don't know for sure. In any case, occasionally I find [: easier to use than @ , just as you do.
I cannot understand how your examples address the question. --- (B=) > On Feb 13, 2015, at 5:17 PM, Linda Alvord <[email protected]> wrote: > > Brian, I like 9!: combinaions. Is it true that you can always remove [: from > a tacit monadic function? > > Also, it doesn't seem to be possible to remove all of them from a dyadic > verb. Here's some examples from code run in a terminal: > > 9!:3]5 > see=: 13 :'(i.x)+/i.y#x' > 3 see 2 > 0 1 2 > 3 4 5 > 6 7 8 > > 1 2 3 > 4 5 6 > 7 8 9 > > 2 3 4 > 5 6 7 > 8 9 10 > see > ([: i. [) +/ [: i. #~ > 9!:3]5 > cbB=: 13 :'<"0@>:@i.y' > pairs=: 13 :'(>:@i. x),"0/>:@i. y' > countB =: <@cb"1@pairs > > cbB > <"0@>:@i. > pairs > ([: >:@i. [) ,"0/ [: >:@i. ] > countB > <@cb"1@pairs > > Linda ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
