To my knowledge H. was undisturbed. What doesn't work?
My view is that 'Taylor' series was a mistake, because it was too
restricted. It should have been called 'Maclaurin series'. If somebody
really needs it, it's not too hard to write a replacement, is it?
Henry Rich
On 1/24/2022 8:25 AM, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 11:30 PM Elijah Stone <[email protected]> wrote:
I therefore propose a 'transpose-ish' family of conjunctions. Say: t. t:
t.. t:: (RIP Taylor series). u t. n brings axis n to the front (brings it
near) before applying u; u t.. n brings axis n to the rear (brings it far,
hence the longer suffix); u t: n brings axis n to the front before
applying u, but returns it afterwards (hence two dots); t:: should be
obvious.
I think that the removal of support for taylor series and
hypergeometric was premature.
(1) It breaks old code, but more importantly,
(2) We do not have adequate library replacements.
Introducing new primitives reusing their tokens would aggravate the
compatibility issue.
That said, what's wrong with using transpose here?
(%+/&.:*:&|:) V
Thanks,
--
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
