You are right, this could have been done using the gerund form of }
w=: 2 2$'abcd'
i=: 3 3$'MNOPQR'
w"_`]`(i"_)}~@<"1(#:i.4){;/+/~0 1
Basically,
w"_`]`(i"_)}~
behaves like
(w 2 :'m y}n'i)
They are not equivalent in all contexts (they have different display
forms, for example), but they accomplish the same end.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:15 PM Brian Schott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Raul,Yes. That is TOO clever (see why, below).Your approach provides a
> way to avoid using gerund form of } .Making the <"1 part of a verb
> (and especially the "1 part of <"1) instead of including it in the
> construction of the verb's righthand argument noun, brings your
> conjunction's y into the amend in steps, rather than all at once. But
> you really defied my intuition by replacing the m in the usual m} with
> the y for the conjunction definition. No wonder I could not make any
> sense of your hint; it was too clever.Thanks,---(B=)
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Mine wasn't a solution, more of a hint. I got the rank wrong.
> >
> > That said, the issue you mentioned would break code in just about any
> > language: my quotes had gotten changed to something else.
> >
> > Anyways, here's a solution:
> >
> > (w 2 :'m y}n'i)@<"1(#:i.4){;/+/~0 1
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
