Why do you think there will be major savings of
computational resources? Can you give a concrete
example?
Sun, 16 Feb 2020, Hauke Rehr написал(а):
> Hello everybody,
>
> I recently stumbled upon some at least
> for me counterintuitive (read: puzzling) behaviour:
>
> In a verb like (>: X) {~ ], when X is a defined constant,
> the constant expression (>: X) is substituted in the verb (as expected)
> but in a conjunction M c N, when M and N are defined constant nouns,
> constant expressions are not substituted in c’s body (not expected)
>
> I would not want m c n to be evaluated time and again
> when some part of it, just like in the case of the verb above,
> could be evaluated once when defining the derived verb.
> This should result in major savings of computational
> resources so I’d have expected J to do this.
>
> could anyone tell me why this is different from verbs?
>
> kind regards,
> Hauke Rehr
> (Jena, Germany)
>
>
> --
> ----------------------
> mail written using NEO
> neo-layout.org
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
regards,
====================================================
GPG key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24
gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --armor --export 4434BAB3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
