Ric, I phrased the tacit definition with an awareness that most of my readers do not know J, and with the hope of keeping as much emphasis as possible on the summation and reflexive exponentiation that dominate this interesting pattern.
JMQ introduced me to the use of lower-case o as synonym for @: and I'm liking it a good deal. Like you, Ric, I still find @: easier to parse, but the aesthetics of the 'o' seem worth the layer of indirection for many occasions. Given (3435 = +/ ^~ 3 4 3 5) as context, are the meanings of 'o' and 'digits' clear by implication, even if they aren't spelled out, for a fluent J programmer looking at (isMunchausen =: = +/ o ^~ o digits)? I'd say the answer is yes, but as the author I may have expected too much when I presented that sentence without its subordinate definitions. Thanks for noting that, given the full definitions, you found it straightforward and clear. -- Tracy On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Sherlock, Ric <r.g.sherl...@massey.ac.nz> wrote: >> From: Tracy Harms >> >> ... > > This seems pretty straight forward and clear to me. > Perhaps the thing that I find hardest in the tacit version is the use of "o" > to represent "@:" (requires an extra level of mental substitution). I think > most reasonably fluent J readers would find the following easier to > parse/understand: > isMunchausen =: = +/@:^~@:digits > > ... which is more obviously a 2-verb train (hook) > > However I imagine someone not familiar with J would find that more > intimidating. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
