The purpose of &> is to unbox atoms of the operands. If you don't need to do that, "0 is better.
In contrast, u&.> was better than <@u"0 even for unboxed operands, last I looked. Henry Rich > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Richard Donovan > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:53 AM > To: Programming forum > Subject: [Jprogramming] "every" adverb > > > I have been playing around with the adverb "every" supplied > with the system: > > d=:i.10 > < d > --------------------┐ > │0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9│ > L-------------------- > every > &> > < &> d > --T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-┐ > │0│1│2│3│4│5│6│7│8│9│ > L-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-- > < "0 d > --T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-┐ > │0│1│2│3│4│5│6│7│8│9│ > L-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-- > d=:i.1e5 > (< &> d) -: (< "0 d) > 1 > ts > 6!:2 , 7!:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 10 ts '< &> d' > 0.426803 1.50782e7 > 10 ts '< "0 d' > 0.0517512 7.33485e6 > > > It seems that "every" forces the preceding verb to take on > the ranks of verb> (open) > i.e. 0 0 0 > > As you can see from the ts tests I ran, it seems that "every > &>" makes a serious time > difference to the expression, and also uses more space. > > If the only purpose of &> is to force the verb ranks to be 0 > 0 0 why not just use the > expression v "0 which is not only more obvious as to what > it's doing but also seems > much quicker and leaner? > _________________________________________________________________ > Great deals on almost anything at eBay.co.uk. Search, bid, > find and win on eBay today! > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000004ukm/direct/01/-- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
