Thanks Henry - sounds great. On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 7:22 AM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> No, no... don't try to reimplement i. . That's a lifetime of work. Or > more. > > I will return the limit on the size of an array back to what it was, > 2^48. That will be enough for all of us! > > The flaw in my thinking was that I forgot that i. on characters and > 2-byte characters doesn't use the exotic forms of i. - they just use > tricky lightweight ones (this is all Roger's stuff). > > Thus, very large character vectors should be fine, and we will support > them as we did before. > > Henry Rich > > On 12/17/2019 11:53 AM, Raul Miller wrote: > > If the /: and I. family do not have this limitation, it seems like it > > would be straightforward to include a fallback for large arrays. As > > in: literally: check the length of the array and if it's too large > > evaluate a J explicit definition which implements indexof. > > > > But we'd need a version without the limit error (and some patience) to > > test the code. (So... j807 for that??) > > > > Thanks, > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
