Oleg wrote: > I thought it was shown that old style shift > is more efficient than infix.
Nope, other way around. Scalar functions like - : http://www.jsoftware.com/help/release/infix2.htm http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2000-October/004573.html Any function f : http://www.jsoftware.com/help/release/infix2a.htm http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2005-June/022851.html Though I don't see this reflected in my benchmarks: ts =: 6!:2 , 7!:2@:] Y =: i.1e7 ts&> '(-~ }. , >:@{:) Y';'(1 ,~ 2 -~/\]) Y' 0.188479 1.34219e8 0.185833 1.3421e8 I think this is because we had to compensate for curtailment due to infix with a catenation. Perhaps x , 2 f/\ y and x ,~ 2 f/\ y are candidates for special code? Tacitly, we could optimize (noun , 2 f/\ ]) and (noun ,~ 2 f/\ ]) . -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
