On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 4:46 PM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > There is a reasonable counterargument that if you want to have > subarrays in one dimension that include all of another dimension, > _ is the easiest way to do it.
You do realize, I hope, that this conflicts with what the dictionary said. The dictionary definition was that _ represented the size of the corresponding dimension, not the size of a different dimension. It was a simple wildcard for cases where the size of a dimension of the right argument was variable, and we just wanted all of it. (I don't see how _ could represent another dimension - that seems unimplementable.) I also see no utility in "infinity means empty" in this context. Why bother? But that doesn't mean this is a high priority issue - it could be one that's put off for later versions. But that wouldn't be because the current implementation is correct - that would be only that we haven't fixed it, yet. Does my point of view here make sense to you? Do you feel that I am overlooking some other key issue? Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
