< L:_2 in the new definition operates two levels down, akin to &.>&.> .
I guess L:_1 would be equivalent to &.>. However, L:_2 would be only similar to &.>&.> because, for example, $&.>&.> t ┌──┬───────┐ │┌┐│┌─┬─┬─┐│ │││││3│2│2││ │└┘│└─┴─┴─┘│ └──┴───────┘ does not agree with the result of $L:_2 t shown in that page (if that is what you really meant to write there), and so forth. > What it does in the old definition defies simple description. For the current monadic case, there is an equivalence, according to the DoJ, Negative values are complementary: u L:(-r) y ↔ u L:(0>.(L.y)-r) y Is there a similar monadic description for your proposed L:? (I am trying to understand your proposal better). On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > I should have phrased my question as, Has anyone used negative level > besides _1? > > L:_1 always means 'open one boxing level' in either definition and differs > from &.> only in that an open argument is passed unchanged to the opened > boxes of the other. To get that effect with the new definition you would > use a level of 0 for the open argument: L:0 _1. > > L:_2 in the new definition operates two levels down, akin to &.>&.> . > What it does in the old definition defies simple description. > > Henry Rich > > On 7/28/2018 7:11 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > >> I have, at least, produced code which includes L:_1 in a context in which >> it is not equivalent to &.>. >> >> Have you considered to get what you want without potentially breaking >> existing code (e.g., giving meaning to imaginary whole numbers for the >> right argument of L:)? >> >> (It seems that you wrote L" instead of L: a couple of times in the >> description of your proposal.) >> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think negative level is wrongly defined. (u L:(-r) y) applies u at >>> level ((L. y) -r), which measures from the bottom of the tree. What I >>> want >>> is a form that applies u two levels down, say, which I can't get now. I >>> propose to change L: to do what I want. >>> >>> Has anyone found a use for L:(-r) using the current definition? >>> >>> My proposed change is described at https://code.jsoftware.com/wik >>> i/System/Interpreter/Requests#Change_definition_of_negative_ >>> level_.28strawman.29 >>> >>> Henry Rich >>> >>> --- >>> 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
