Eg in Dyalog APL:
1, 2>/ 10 7 5 6 7 1 9 8 2 4
1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
is the idiom corresponding to J 601's
(1,2>/\])d
1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
Perhaps I should have said "2nd generation APL" rather
than APL2.
Mike
Joey K Tuttle wrote:
I'm curious (and not an APL2 user), does APL2 really have
something similar to x f\ y ?? What is the syntax?
- joey
At 10:38 +0000 2006/24/3, Mike Day wrote:
As you noted, John Randall's }: > }. is of interest. 2 >/\ ] is a
natural J/APL2 way to do it, whereas }: > }. is the J
form of an ancient APL1 idiom for first differences and the like,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
