I agree with you about the desirability of changing the definition but
boy! what code it might break! We have to decide whether the change is
worth the trouble.
On second thought, maybe not so much would break. I know that dozens of
times I have written (atom #: list) and gotten the result I didn't want,
but I always fixed them by writing #.^:_1 . I don't remember any cases
where I left (atom #: y) intending to get an atomic result. Has anyone?
Henry Rich
On 7/4/2018 1:37 AM, Joey K Tuttle wrote:
The proposed change is only to Antibase (#:) not Copy (#)
Plus, all the functionality of #: would be maintained and the statement from NuVoc,
"x #: y is used only when you need to state how many places you want in the
result would still remain in effect but the left argument be required to be a vector
(even if only 1 place was sought).
On 2018Jul 3, at 21:41, Skip Cave <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
