Welcome to J, and to the Forum!
This looks right to me. In the last case the verb is 3&(*:@[) which
always produces 9:
3&(*:@[) "0 i. 10
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
3&(*:@[) 1 2 3 4
9
You execute it 4 times, getting 4 results of 9.
The difference with the first case is that there you are executing
x *:@] y
which squares y, not x; and y changes with each iteration.
If you haven't seen Dissect, give it a look. It can help with things
like this (I didn't try it on this example).
You say you see a change between 8.07 and 9.01: please report that. I
don't think there should be a difference except for rare cases.
Henry Rich
On 5/17/2020 8:55 AM, François A wrote:
I have a couple of times needed to pass arguments to the power conjunction
but struggled to do so in tacit form. I also noticed that j901 and j807 seem to
behave differently with regard to tacit adverbs.
Here is the matter after reductio ad simplicissimum.
1 2 3 4 *:(1 : 'u^:x y') 3
9 81 6561 43046721
3 *:(1 : 'u^:y x') 1 2 3 4
9 81 6561 43046721
1 2 3 4 *:(@] (^:[)) 3
9 81 6561 43046721
3 *:(@[ (^:])) 1 2 3 4
9 9 9 9
Clearly [ and ] do not behave here as I expected. I tried with tie and evoke
gerunds because I thought it could make sense, but to no avail.
Looking forward to being enlightened.
Regards, F.
PS: J beginner here and first time poster
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
