#'([:w[:v u)' 10 #'v&.:(u :.w)' 11 Clever, but I'm not sure I see the appeal...
(But I guess the ranks are different, so a proper comparison would probably be with w@v@u instead of with [:w[:v u). Thanks, -- Raul On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:06 AM David Lambert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Since we don't yet have > w`v`u`:666 evaluates equivalently as the train [: w [: v u > > v&.:(u :.w) NB. a single verb > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
