I would prefer to put that slightly differently -- since atomic representation seems to be supported during normal execution.
I am not sure how I would phrase it, though. So maybe I'm just lacking a concept of "normal execution"? Thanks, -- Raul On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 9:31 PM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > Atomic representation is not part of normal execution. It is a way to > represent a verb as a noun. To execute an atomic representation > requires converting it to internal form (i. e. the form produced by > parsing) first. > > Henry Rich > > On 5/3/2020 7:51 PM, Raoul Schorer wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have been comparing manually built identical phrases (a dyadic verb > > with its arguments) and executing it with ". or `:6. My understanding > > was that the advantage of atomic representation was that it bypassed > > parsing and that the execution model was: > > > > input string -> parsing -> atomic representation -> interpretation -> > > result > > > > However, I was surprised to see no speedup at all when transitioning > > from string to atomic representation. Of course, my particular code > > may be the issue. What are the usual strengths and weaknesses of > > string vs. atomic representation? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Raoul > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > -- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
