Lovely! Not at all obvious (to me)until you do it with simple verbs. > On Dec 7, 2019, at 9:30 AM, Jimmy Gauvin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > is the following what you want ? > > 1 2 3 (+ ; * ; -) 6 7 8 > ┌──────┬───────┬────────┐ > │7 9 11│6 14 24│_5 _5 _5│ > └──────┴───────┴────────┘ > > > >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:54 PM ethiejiesa via Programming < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Am I just doing something silly? Or does @. really not support building >> trains >> when the right operand is a verb? Here is an overly minimal example of >> what I >> want: >> >> (1:)`+`(1:)@.(0 1 2) 0 >> 2 >> (1:)`+`(1:)@.(0 1 2"_) 0 >> |rank error >> | (1:)`+`(1:)@.(0 1 2"_)0 >> >> This is an obvious enough feature, that I feel I must be missing some >> obvious >> construction. >> >> For context, I was futzing around with this year's Advent of Code[0], day >> 2, >> and found myself wanting a fork-like that behaves as >> >> x (u v w) y <-> (x u y) (x v y) (x w y). >> >> After sufficient floundering, I decided to just read NuVoc for all >> modifiers >> and discovered that I had somehow not noticed the usefulness of @. >> However, the >> above restriction really surprised me. >> >> Anyway, happy holidays, J birds. >> >> [0]:https://adventofcode.com/2019/ >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
