Arie:
> I do not get your result?
Put this down to "the vaguaries of benchmarking". The difference is not
significant in either case.
OTOH, I just did different test:
ts =: 6!:2 , 7!:2@:]
Y =: ?.@:$&2]1e7
ts&>'(}. +. }:) Y';'2 +./\ Y'
0.0517359 5.03327e7
0.227543 3.35559e7
0.01 round (%"1<./) ts&>'(}. +. }:) Y';'2 +./\ Y' [ load'misc'
1 1.5
4.69 1
This difference *is* significant, and it corroborates Oleg's assertion:
> I thought it was shown that old style shift
> is more efficient than infix.
which surprises me, given the links I cited before. Roger, can you clarify
or elaborate?
Oleg, I haven't been watching the Forums closely lately; would you point me to
the messages that highlighted this behavior (i.e. shift+operate is faster than
infix)?
-Dan
PS: This latter benchmark is not relevant to the problem at hand, because of
the requirement for catentation I indicated earlier. Neither method is a clear
winner in that case (i.e. their performance is comparable).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
