Sorry, these were stupid examples. I'll come back. /Erling
On 2017-09-29 15:53, Erling Hellenäs wrote:
Hi all!
From these simple examples it does not seem to be any difference in
time and space requirements between the [:+] syntax and the +@:]
syntax. Not even if we insert more brackets.
ts'(i.v) ([:+[:+[:+[:+]) i.v=.1000000'
0.00936323 1.67808e7
ts'(i.v) (+@:+@:+@:+@:]) i.v=.1000000'
0.00935086 1.67808e7
ts'(i.v) (+@:(+@:(+@:(+@:])))) i.v=.1000000'
0.00925313 1.67811e7
As we can see using @ instead of @: has a heavy penalty in both time
and space requirements.
ts'(i.v) (+@+@+@+@]) i.v=.1000000'
0.341589 1.69553e8
Cheers,
Erling
On 2017-09-29 05:31, Henry Rich wrote:
It seems a bit much to ask Raul to track down a recent email thread.
No, @: does not create a namespace. Only explicit entities have a
namespace.
Henry Rich
On 9/28/2017 11:19 PM, Erling Hellenäs wrote:
On 2017-09-29 04:59, Raul Miller wrote:
I do not know of any definition of "namespace" such that @: creates
a namespace.
Why do you think that @: creates a namespace?
Thanks,
As I said there was a discussion about this in a long thread
recently. Maybe you can find it? This is from what I remember of
this thread, it's not from my own investigations.
/Erling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
