In cases I needed only one number to encode I used residue. 5#:123 3 5|123 3
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 7:45 AM Jan-Pieter Jacobs <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm also in favor of #: working as #.^:_1 . > > I have no clue whether much would break, but I can imagine if anybody does > need it they can as well use {:@:#: . If this would be a problem > performance-wise, maybe the old logic could be applied in this case as > special code? > > Just my 2 cents. > > Best regards, > > Jan-Pieter > > On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, 14:45 Henry Rich, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
