Tolerance and ordering do not mix well. Watch this:
y=: 1 + (2^_44) * 400 ?...@$ 200
# ~. y
67
# ~. y {~ ?~#y
70
# ~. y {~ ?~#y
71
# ~. y {~ ?~#y
73
# ~. y {~ ?~#y
70
# ~. y {~ ?~#y
69
# ~. y {~ ?~#y
70
# ~. y {~ ?~#y
70
# ~. y {~ ?~#y
68
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Bron <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 7:07
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] How to use dyad I.
To: 'Programming forum' <[email protected]>
> RM=Raul Miller, DB=me:
> RM> I. becoming tolerant would be a breaking change
> RM> in the language ... So I do not consider potential
> RM> language change to be a valid design issue.
>
> I have less confidence in this inference than you do, especially
> in the context of tolerance (or other implementation, as opposed to
> notation, changes) [1].
>
> DB> Nested trains can definitely be leveraged to re-use
> calculations.
>
> RM> I usually prefer to avoid such approaches
>
> To each his own, of course. And my threshold for "going
> explicit" is higher than most.
>
> -Dan
>
> [1] Though the fact that I.'s intolerance is called out in
> its very definition is a good sign (OTOH, it could also just be a
> warning; I suspect if Roger could've easily made I. tolerant, he
> would have, and I.'s intolerance stems from fundamental
> difficulties in providing tolerance, or reliance on other
> intolerance functions).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
