Say u is your current processing
and v tells what axes are meant to look like in the result.
Then I think
(v@$ $ u) data
does the trick already. Looks like a simple conjunction to me.
If otoh you don’t know v, J won’t either.
Am 21.08.20 um 02:40 schrieb Henry Rich:
I don't think it fits into the language where you want to put it.
(x $ y) is to be used when you know what you want the shape to be. It
sounds like you are guessing at it, and asking $ to make a plausible
guess. I say that is a different function.
The fact that you can handle only one infinity is a warning signal that
the definition is incomplete.
Henry Rich
On 8/20/2020 8:33 PM, David Lambert wrote:
The proposal is for dyadic $ only.
Processing experimental data which sometimes arrives in irregular
chunks I often end up with a vector.
q: # data
helps me figure out how to match data to the experiment. The proposal
solves the case where one of the inner shape atoms is unknown.
If this is a sufficiently common situation, and Pascal shows interest,
it might be a worthwhile extension. On the other hand, the
implementations presented meet need, and I have these. It breaks only
the unlikely programs that depend on _ triggering an error. J need
only check for infinity if x is float, and I'd think the engine
already tests the type of x.
|On Tuesday, August 18, 2020, 07:51:03 p.m. EDT, Henry Rich
<[email protected]> wrote:
|This is a proposed change only to dyad and $ , is that right?
|What problem does this solve?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
----------------------
mail written using NEO
neo-layout.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
