I do not get your result?
ts&> '(-~ }. , >:@{:) Y';'(1 ,~ 2 -~/\]) Y'
0.214758 134219264
0.29116 134219648
Dan Bron schreef:
> 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
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
