> My input is numbers and my output is numbers
> and fundamentally I'm doing arithmetic - so why should I have to
> translate to strings & back? (I know the answer, I'm just
> giving you my thought process. ...
I am curious regarding what "the answer" is.
There is an analogy from mathematics. Number theory
(the study of integers) advanced by leaps and bounds
with the application of the the machinery of calculus and
complex analysis. Why should complex numbers
have anything to do with integers?
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Bron <j...@bron.us>
Date: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 9:30
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] tacit programming
To: 'Programming forum' <programming@jsoftware.com>
> Raul wrote:
> > {.&.":&> seems more natural than anything involving #:
> or #.inv
>
> I'll buy that as a practical matter. But as a notational
> matter, it just
> doesn't "feel" right to me. My input is numbers and my
> output is numbers
> and fundamentally I'm doing arithmetic - so why should I have to
> translateto strings & back? (I know the answer, I'm just
> giving you my thought
> process. This similar to the reason I was nettled by
> "."0@": being
> optimized rather than 10&#.^:_1 [1] .)
>
> > An issue here is that #: and #.inv are designed to pad
> with leading
>
> Yep, that's what stymied the first correction I sent to Bjorn: I
> had [:
> ({."1) 10 #.^:_1 p:@:i. but I had to change it to
> {.@(10&#.^:_1)@p:@:i.for exactly this reason (naturally, I
> realized this 14 microseconds after
> hitting "send" - OTOH I am always pleased to find a natural use
> for @ as
> opposed to @: and since {."1 required parens anyway, the new
> formulationwasn't any messier).
>
> But #: padding on the left is helpful much more
> often than it is a
> nuisance (we're array programmers, after all), so I shouldn't
> complain.
> -Dan
>
> [1] http://www.jsoftware.com/help/release/digits10.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
