The problem with 0,~ is that it throws an error when dedouble is
passed an empty argument. Is there a good reason for throwing that
error?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:31 AM Hauke Rehr <hauke.r...@uni-jena.de> wrote:
>
> Now that looks way better than what I did.
> After digra, it works differently.
> I’d still say 0,~ instead of #{. because
> there is no dependence on its #, really.
>
> Every now and then I see uses of j. I wouldn’t
> have thought of. Is the list at the bottom of
> nuvoc’s jdot entry complete?
> I should start memorizing these uses of pairs
> of numbers – they’re really handy.
> (and all the ways !. may be employed, too)
>
> Am 04.02.21 um 15:46 schrieb Raul Miller:
> > Ah, I see it now -- I should have looked closer at your digraphs.
> >
> > Here's a fixed version:
> >
> > digra=: * 2 | i.@# + +/\
> > dedouble=: #!.'X'~ 1 j. [: digra #{.}.=}:
> >
> > (I could not think of a good name for the "compress out splits of
> > non-digraphs" mechanism.)
> >
> > The moral of the story here is that numeric calculations can often
> > replace simple recursive processes. (Because numbers can be defined
> > recursively.)
> >
> > I hope this helps,
> >
>
> --
> ----------------------
> mail written using NEO
> neo-layout.org
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
