"The answer" pertains to Dan's comment,
so why should I have to translate to strings & back?
(I know the answer, I'm just giving you my thought process.
i.e. I am interested in Dan's explanation of why
one should translate to strings and back.
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Guinn <dongu...@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:01
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] tacit programming
To: Programming forum <programming@jsoftware.com>
> I thought the original issue was on how readable tacit
> expressions are, not
> the correctness or most efficient the expression. Based on the
> comments in
> this thread it seems that people can read the original tacit
> expressionquite well.
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Roger Hui <rhui...@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
> > > 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
