On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Tracy Harms <[email protected]> wrote: >> Unfortunately in this case it means that the left-hand argument has to >> be encoded in a peculiar manner, which runs contrary to the clarity I >> was reaching for. > > Or you can use & > m&u&.v > > This would typically require an explicit definition, but in my opinion > eschewing explicit definitions has only academic benefits. >
Thanks, Raul. I'll study that one. I must add to this discussion some attention to Chapter 30 of J for C Programmers, the section entitled "Example: A Conjunction that Analyzes u and v": | The dyad x u&.v y applies the same transformation to both x and y, but in many cases | the transformation is meaningful only on one operand, and what we would like is a | conjunction Undery such that x u Undery v y produces v^:_1 x u v y . It's one of my favorite sections of that book. Guess my memory works, though not so quickly as I'd like. Tracy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
