Henry, Your explanation of how the conjunctions are parsed helped make the tree
diagrams make more sense. I gave up my idea.
f=: 13 :'(%@(%:@(-@(+@*:))))y'
5!:4 <'f'
┌─ %
── @ ─┤ ┌─ %:
└─ @ ─┤ ┌─ -
└─ @ ─┤ ┌─ +
└─ @ ─┴─ *:
g=: 13 :'%@%:@-@+@*:y'
5!:4 <'g'
┌─ %
┌─ @ ─┴─ %:
┌─ @ ─┴─ -
┌─ @ ─┴─ +
── @ ─┴─ *:
f 4
0j_0.25
0j_0.25
0j_0.25
g 4
0j_0.25
Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: Programming [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Brian Schott
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 3:57 PM
To: Programming forum
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] @ and @: (atop and at)
Henry, I think I get it now.
Thanks very much for that long detailed explanation of parsing vs execution. It
helped a lot.
Also, the examples you gave earlier of dissecting #@> 'a';1 2 and #@:>
'a';1 2 really helped. (Eventually I changed 1 2 to 20 30 so that the 1 and
2 did not get confused with the ranks 1 and 2.) Although I must admit that it
was mostly in their contrast that I understood the dissects, not separately. I
am still having trouble with all of the richness of information in dissects.
It's not a problem with dissect, it's me.
--
(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
