As long as we don''t change this functionality:

1 1 0 1 0 0 1#10 2 34 13 6 87 9

10 2 13 9


Skip Cave
Cave Consulting LLC


On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:33 PM Jimmy Gauvin <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I also support the idea of this scalar extension.
>
> #.inv or  #.^:_1 have a "kludgy" feeling ...
>
>
> Jimmy
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:31 PM, Joey K Tuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone provide a reason it would be undesirable to have a scalar left
> > (x) argument to #: behave any differently than  x (#.^:_1) y  ?
> >
> > In NuVoc I find - "
> > x #: y is used only when you need to state how many places you want in
> the
> > result, or if x contains differing values. If you want just sufficient
> > places to hold the value of y in the base x, use  #.inv to convert to a
> > fixed base.
> >
> > #.inv is the same as  #.^:_1 .
> > "
> > A scalar extension of x is applied in expression  x #. y and scalar
> > extension of the default 2 in the monodic forms of both #. and #:
> >
> > So why discriminate against other base values by not extending a scalar
> > left argument?
> >
> > I think this would be a useful scalar extension and make sense when
> > explaining #: and #. to students.
> >
> > Here are some simple examples around what I'm talking about.
> >
> >    #: 1234  NB. special case within special case??
> > 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
> >    #. 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
> > 1234
> >
> > NB. Base 10 is pretty common for most of us.
> >
> >    10 #. 1 2 3 4
> > 1234
> >    10 #: 1234
> > 4
> >    10 (#.^:_1) 1234
> > 1 2 3 4
> >    10 10 10 #: 1234
> > 2 3 4
> >    10 10 10 (#.^:_1) 1234
> > 2 3 4
> >     (,10) (#.^:_1) 1234
> > 4
> >      10 (#.^:_1) 6?.20000
> > 1 6 1 9 4
> > 1 4 3 2 6
> > 0 3 3 4 2
> > 1 1 2 2 0
> > 1 7 5 4 1
> > 1 5 1 0 8
> >
> > NB. other bases can be fun too e.g.
> >
> >    29r3 (#.^:_1) 6?.20000
> > 1 22r3 26r3  8r3  7r3
> > 1 16r3    8    3    0
> > 0    3    6 20r3    7
> > 1  7r3    4    0 20r3
> > 1 28r3 10r3 19r3 17r3
> > 1 19r3 19r3 17r3 26r3
> >
> > I can't imagine any broken applications resulting from extending scalar
> x,
> > but I'm all ears for hearing about one.
> >
> > Well, I guess if you really wanted the modulo of a number and used #:
> > instead of | then you would need to make the left argument be a vector
> (or
> > just replace #: by | ) but ... since -
> >
> >    (29r3 #: 6?.20000) -: 29r3 | 6?.20000
> > 1
> >
> >  would anyone suffer from losing that identity?
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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

Reply via email to