Sorry, no, I meant lambda=: 3 : And I do not claim that the definition is equivalent.
I did claim that it is straightforward. Thanks, -- Raul On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote: > Raul writes: > > " > Also straightforward would be this adverb. > > lambda= 3 : > " > > lambda = 3 : > |value error: lambda > | lambda=3 : > > Did you mean the following? > > lambda=. 3 : > > If so, > > sf=. [: u0 u1 u2 (u0@[ u1 u2@]) lambda > |domain error: lambda > | sf=.[:u0 u1 u2 (u0@[u1 u2@])lambda > > I am afraid our understandings of "equivalent" are somewhat different. (I > would move this to chat but I do not subscribe to that forum.) > > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Jose Mario Quintana < > jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Regarding the first release of Jx see [0]. >> >> Personally, regardless of the availability of Jx, as I said, I prefer in >> this kind of case, an adverb using strand notation, and one should be able >> to produce it using an official J (Pascal might give it a try); >> furthermore, one should also be able to produce the equivalent of the >> adverb lambda which I have found to be quite handy. (I just do not have a >> reason to try). >> >> [0] [Jprogramming] J Extensions >> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2014-March/035925.html >> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Jose Mario Quintana >>> <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > I would rather use strand notation (a multiple adverb). Using Jx and >>> the >>> > adverb lambda mentioned in [0] is straightforward: >>> >>> Personally, I don't even remember where to download Jx - nor do I know >>> where to find docs on how it differs from the official implementation, >>> nor do I know what naming scheme to use in the OS to keep it (and its >>> versions) straight with the official versions. >>> >>> Any suggestions? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -- >>> Raul >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>> >> >> > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Jose Mario Quintana < > jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I would rather use strand notation (a multiple adverb). Using Jx and the >> adverb lambda mentioned in [0] is straightforward: >> >> sf=. [: u0 u1 u2 (u0@[ u1 u2@]) lambda >> +: + -:sf >> +:@[ + -:@] >> >> 3 4 +: + -:sf 2 4 >> 7 10 >> >> type'sf' >> ┌──────┐ >> │adverb│ >> └──────┘ >> >> [0] [Jprogramming] Can whatever be written tacitly? >> >> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015-February/041130.html >> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
