I think this explanation by Raul addresses the conceptual underpinning of the difference. However, if you want to think of stitch as laminate along the last axis, you could define it that way, e.g.:
1 2 3,:&.|:4 5 1 4 2 5 3 0 On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/23/08, Hahn, Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In other words, "append" and "laminate" can join data under ALL > > conditions (by filling out arrays), but stitch only works under SOME > > conditions. I was merely wondering why "stitch" was restricted and > > "append" and "laminate" were not? > > Conceptually speaking, append and laminate join items. And if > the items aren't quite the same size then the fill rules can be > used to make them (the items) have the same structure. > > However, stitch works "within" items. It pairs up items from each > argument and dives into them to pair up their contents. > > Anyways, if you want "stitch with fill", you should probably use > ,./@,: > > 1 2 3 ,./@,: 4 5 > 1 4 > 2 5 > 3 0 > > But notice how the fill rules conflict with stitche's definition: > (i.2 3),. 6 7 > 0 1 2 6 > 3 4 5 7 > (i.2 3),./@,: 6 7 > 0 1 2 6 7 0 > 3 4 5 0 0 0 > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- Devon McCormick, CFA ^me^ at acm. org is my preferred e-mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
