Oops, ignore that, W isn't a valid direction and stalls things. -- Raul
On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > How is it supposed to work for a sequence like 'W N SE'? > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Brian Schott <[email protected]> wrote: >> Oh, I forgot to mention another peculiarity regarding >> the result shown. (Actually a hint of this peculiarity was >> included at the bottom, where I mistakenly included a >> line of code regarding `test2 =: ...... test`.) >> >> I am referring to the large number of Ns and SEs remaining >> in the **culled** list of directions I called `test`. >> It seems to me that `all` should have been able to combine >> 133 of the Ns and SEs into 133 more NEs, and left only >> the 110 Ns with 696 NEs. But it didn't. >> >> Can anyone see why this happened? >> >> On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Brian Schott <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> [snip] >> >> #;:test2 =: ((all :: ])&. ;:)^: _ test >>> 939 >>> (<'NE') i.~;: test >>> 0 >>> (<'SE') i.~;: test >>> 649 >>> (<'N') i.~;: test NB. this result should be < 939 >>> 939 >>> >>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
