On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote: > You'll find an example of this in the first message of this thread; I used > _1e_16 as my epsilon. While this works today, because I. isn't tolerant, I > don't like it because it will break if I. ever becomes tolerant, or if > deltas of that magnitude are ever significant in my application domain.
I. becoming tolerant would be a breaking change in the language and also the type of change for which Roger Hui has expressed strong dislike. So I do not consider this potential language change to be a valid design issue. The application domain, of course, remains significant. > Nested trains can definitely be leveraged to re-use calculations. The issue > becomes retaining & passing around more than 2 arrays (the max a J verb can > consume). In this case, we already need access to x and y, and retaining I. > for re-use effectively gives us a 3rd argument. So we need to do a little > boxing to join at least 2 of the arguments into a single argument, and > little unboxing later to pick it apart: ... Yes. But I usually prefer to avoid such approaches (unless the resulting boxed data structure has some other value, or unless the verbosity introduced by box handling remains minor in the larger scheme of things). -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
