There is no bug. The forms m...@.n and m...@.v are fundamentally different. In particular, m...@.v y is not the same as m...@.(v y) y .
----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Bron <j...@bron.us> Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:35 Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Wrong agenda? To: Programming forum <programming@jsoftware.com> > Pepe wrote: > > What is wrong with the agenda in the last line? > > (-`%)@.((0 1)"_) 1 2 3 4 5 > > |rank error > > Nothing wrong with the expression; the interpreter has a > bug. > > I guess few people use verbal agenda to construct trains, so > this hasn't > been caught before. Most often agenda is used to select a > single verb > from the agenda, so agenda expects the verb to return a scalar. > > I tried a workaround. I boxed the list so that the verb > returns a scalar, > which should have no effect on the train produced (the box would > theoretically just put a pair of parens around the train): > > (- > `%)@.((<0 1)"_) 1 2 3 4 5 > |length error > | (-`%)@.((<0 1)"_)1 2 3 > 4 5 > > > but no joy. > > -Dan > > > ----- Original Message --------------- > > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Wrong agenda? > From: Don Guinn <dongu...@gmail.com> > Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:47:05 -0700 > To: Programming forum > <programming@jsoftware.com> > Added parens to make the rank apply to the entire expression. > > ((-`%)@.((0 1))"_) 1 2 3 4 5 > 0 1.5 2.66667 3.75 4.8 > > Is this what you wanted? > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Jose Mario Quintana < > josemarioquint...@2bestsystems.com> wrote: > > > What is wrong with the agenda in the last line? > > > > (- %) 1 2 3 4 5 > > 0 1.5 2.66666667 3.75 4.8 > > > > (-`%)@.(0 1) 1 2 3 4 5 > > 0 1.5 2.66666667 3.75 4.8 > > > > (-`%)@.((0 1)"_) 1 2 3 4 5 > > |rank error > > | (-`%)@.((0 1)"_)1 2 3 4 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
