Why would you ever say x+0 or y*1 ?

-Dan


Please excuse typos; composed on a handheld device.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Hui <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 07:13:04 
To: Programming forum<[email protected]>
Reply-To: Programming forum <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Atop u...@v with v of negative monadic rank

When would you ever say f"f ?



----- Original Message -----
From: Zsbán Ambrus <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:06
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Atop u...@v with v of negative monadic rank
To: Programming forum <[email protected]>

> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Roger Hui <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The change you propose is non-trivial and has consequences
> > that may surprise you (and many others, I expect).
> >
> > Suppose f is <"_1, and you make the "combining rank" of
> > f be_1 instead of the current_ .
> >
> > So the ranks of ]...@f would be_1 (_1_1_1).  Suppose the
> > argument x is i.2 3 4.  Since the ranks of ]...@f are_1,
> > x is split into the cells i.3 4 and 12+i.3 4 and you apply
> > ]...@f to each cell.  [...]
> 
> You're right in that combining ranks shouldn't have negative integers,
> because that too would make (f"f) mean something different from f,
> such as in the case when (f=:<"_1).  I accept that that 
> change would
> be a bad idea, so I retract that part of my suggestion.
> 
> On the other hand, are there many surprises or incompatibilities even
> if you take only the weaker variant of my proposal?  That 
> says that if
> rl is a negative integer and rr is a nonnegative integer, the diadic
> combining rank of f"(rl,rr) should be (__) instead of 
> (_,rr).  For
> example, the combining rank of (]"__3 7) would be (__ 
>_).  The case
> with left and right swapped would be handled similarly.  
> The combining
> ranks would still always be nonnegative.
> 
> As I said, this too would be better than the current state 
> because it
> would help uphold the f -: f"f identity, which the current semantics
> does not do for such verbs.
> 
> Ambrus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to