Hello Roger;
True observations, as I would expect.
To be precise, the only difference in length is the parentheses.
Some experimentation showed me that:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] g [: h]
is equivalent as well.
Still, I would have been as happy with fewer tokens.
Defining:
lft =: @[
rgt =: @]
allowing
f lft g h rgt
is a useful quick&dirty gloss.
Roger Hui wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] g [EMAIL PROTECTED] is equivalent to ([: f [)g([: h])
but is shorter and requires no parens.
----- Original Message -----
From: "R.A. MacDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, June 7, 2007 6:49 am
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] tactic programming
Hello Mike;
I suspect that Raul was misled by the use of '+/ open % close' as
a
solution.
The solution Raul proposed does tug at my (Browningian?) yearning
at a
phrasal form that does:
(f x) g (h y)
and is not as cluttered as
([: f [)g([: h])
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
later ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|\/| Randy A MacDonald | APL: If you can say it, it's done.. (ram)
|/\| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|\ | | The only real problem with APL is that
BSc(Math) UNBF'83 | it is "still ahead of its time."
Sapere Aude | - Morten Kromberg
| Looking for a whip-smart APL developer? Send me a
note.
Natual born APL'er | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------(INTP)----{ gnat }-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
