> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Hui
> An alternative:
>
> b1=: 1 : 'u&.> <'
> + b1
> +&.> <
>
> a=. `:6
> b=. ((&.>)(`<))a
> + b
> +&.> <
>
>
One important difference (at least to me) is, for instance (in the next
release),
e=. &.>
a=. `:6
b=. (e (`<))a
b=. 'b'f.
Henceforth one could use 'b' without having to depend on the definition of
'e' and would make 'b' more portable and robust.
erase'e'
1
+b 0 1 2
----T---T---┐
│0 1 2│1 2 3│2 3 4│
L---+---+----
+b
+&.> <
b
((&.>)(`<))(`:6)
In contrast,
e=. &.>
b1=: 1 : 'u e <'
b1=. 'b1'f.
erase'e'
1
+b1 0 1 2
|value error: e
| +b1 0 1 2
|[-16]
+b1
+ e <
b1
1 : 'u e <'>
e=. &.>
+b1 0 1 2
----T---T---┐
│0 1 2│1 2 3│2 3 4│
L---+---+----
> From: Jose Mario Quintana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > It is comforting to know that one would be able to use `:6 as a
> > pro-adverb
> > to define other fixable pro-adverbs. Thanks.
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
