I'm not following your thought process on the special case for complementary indexing. Can you show me where this helps?
Thanks, -- Raul On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > !! That's a GREAT idea! Having to box the damned indexes has been a > recurring trouble-spot for me, and when it matters for performance > workarounds are hard. I have never had a case where I was tempted to have a > multidimensional array of atomic indexes for amend, and of course if one > came up I could just enfile it. > > I would change the proposal slightly: > > In x m} y, each raveled item of m specifies a selector for y [this selector > can be an atom, a numeric list, or a list of boxes.] If the selector > contains more than 1 atom, an additional level of boxing is added. The > resulting > selector may not specify complementary indexing. > > Anybody see anything wrong with that? > > Henry Rich > > > On 12/14/2017 2:11 PM, Raul Miller wrote: >> >> That said, if this had been done in the original implementation, then >> a sentence like: >> >> "If 2>#$y we ravel each item in the indices" > > > > --- > 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
