Hi Linda,
I am using this thread to reply to your question in order to get off the thread
that Henry and Bill are using for their debugging conversation.
You asked:
Thanks. However, I was trying to use the example to show the differences
between an explicit definition using 3 : and a tacit version using 13 : .
Is there a way to show my explicit definition as is usually the way 3 : works?
Linda
I think that if you are looking for a way to define a dyadic verb using 3 : in
one line - the way to do it is to box the multiline verb so that each box
represents a line. The first line of the monadic case is [: which means that it
is not going to work monadically at all. Sp when the parser moves along the
line and gets to
alpha1 fruits
it will know that this is not a monadic verb and moves on to
aA alpha1 fruits
which it can process. Without the [: it tries to process the monadic form and
gives you your domain error.
The following creates a one line explicit verb that works.
('[:';':';'y /: <./x i."1 _ y') NB. boxed script
┌──┬─┬──────────────────┐
│[:│:│y /: <./x i."1 _ y│
└──┴─┴──────────────────┘
alpha1=: 3 : ('[:';':';'y /: <./x i."1 _ y')
aA alpha1 fruits
Fig
Kiwi
Peach
Pear
Cheers, bob
> On Aug 7, 2018, at 7:47 AM, Brian Schott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Linda,
>
> Try alpha2 instead of alpha1 to circumvent the domain error because 4
> signals a dyadic verb.
>
> alpha1=: 3 :'y /: <./x i."1 _ y'
> alpha2=: 4 :'y /: <./x i."1 _ y'
>
> It's a little puzzling what you are trying to do because the following
> gives a similar result.
>
> /:~fruits
> Fig
> Kiwi
> Peach
> Pear
>
> (If this question has already been answered, I am sorry to clutter the mail
> list.)
> --
> (B=) <-----my sig
> Brian Schott
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
