=: (anonymous
noun)"
- Original Message -
From: Henry Rich
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Early assignment WAS: Non-mutable arrays
All I can say is, It doesn't work that way. (You have 2 statements,
each with 2 version
erstanding,
is there a counter example to
"There is no possible f such that f N differs from f N =: (anonymous noun)"
- Original Message -
From: Henry Rich
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Early assignment WAS: Non-
ware.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Early assignment WAS: Non-mutable arrays
I have been assuming that by 'N' you meant 'any name'. And in that
case, the statements are assuredly NOT the same.
N =: value
f N
is different from
f N =: v
- Original Message -
From: Henry Rich
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Early assignment WAS: Non-mutable arrays
I am changing your statement to:
"There is no possible f such that
N =: (anonymous name)
f N
gives a differ
lt, but (f N) cannot, unless it is (N =: f N).
Logically though, (N =: f N =: 1) can be treated like (N =: f N).
- Original Message -
From: Henry Rich
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Early assignment WAS: Non-
differs from f N =: (anonymous noun)"
- Original Message -
From: Henry Rich
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Early assignment WAS: Non-mutable arrays
All I can say is, It doesn't work that way. (You have 2 statements,
each
e
> precisely the anonymous "usecount" is freed)
> >
> > There is no possible f such that f N differs from f N =: (noun). ie. the
> line is always identical to the 2 lines
> >
> > N =: (noun)
> > f N
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Early assignment WAS: Non-mutable arrays
All I can say is, It doesn't work that way. (You have 2 statements,
each with 2 versions. All 4 statements are false.)
Henry Rich
On 10/5/2016 10:10 AM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
>
>> Assignment
[email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Early assignment WAS: Non-mutable arrays
Yes, you're right, I misanalyzed. It goes like this:
1 2 3 starts with a usecount of 1, and a mark to indicate that the
usecount should be decremented when t
a use count of 1 here, right after the assignment. (more
>>> precisely the anonymous "usecount" is freed)
>>>
>>> There is no possible f such that f N differs from f N =: (noun). ie. the
>>> line is always identical to the 2 lines
>>>
>>> N
I understand your argument. One needs to walk through the execution before
knowing whether to make an early copy. I guess we can do it manually, if so
desires, but how do you actually make a copy that has refcount 1 in J? The use
case would be saving the old argument while letting the interpr
one installer)
- Original Message -
From: Henry Rich
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Early assignment WAS: Non-mutable arrays
Yes, this is executed in-place.
In general, an assignment to a name whose value is not i
gt; On 10/4/2016 10:21 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
>> this didn't seem to work in beta 12 (latest all in one installer)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: Henry Rich
>> To: [email protected]
&g
entical to the 2 lines
N =: (noun)
f N
- Original Message -
From: Henry Rich
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Early assignment WAS: Non-mutable arrays
Yes, you're right, I misanalyzed. It goes like this:
1 2 3 star
al Message -
> From: Henry Rich
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 10:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Early assignment WAS: Non-mutable arrays
>
> Yes, this is executed in-place.
>
> In general, an assignment to a name whose value is not
[email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Early assignment WAS: Non-mutable arrays
Yes, this is executed in-place.
In general, an assignment to a name whose value is not in use in another
name causes that value to become eligible for in-place
this didn't seem to work in beta 12 (latest all in one installer)
- Original Message -
From: Henry Rich
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Early assignment WAS: Non-mutable arrays
Yes, this is executed in-place
th consistent results.
- Original Message -
From: Henry Rich
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 7:25 PM
Subject: [Jprogramming] Early assignment WAS: Non-mutable arrays
The whole point of operation in place is to avoid having to copy an
in-placeable argument;
name to be safe", works
ok, but above line in console can be edited and reapplied with consistent
results.
- Original Message -
From: Henry Rich
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 7:25 PM
Subject: [Jprogramming] Early assignment WAS: Non-mutable arrays
IMO the dependence of so many preconditions that affects the behavior is
convoluted and unhelpful. Or at least these preconditions should be fine
tuned or overrided by some 9!:53 options.
On Oct 5, 2016 7:25 AM, "Henry Rich" wrote:
> The whole point of operation in place is to avoid having to
Whatever you go with, I think the dictionary should be updated to
describe the new behavior.
Perhaps we need a new supplement to the parsing&execution appendix?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:25 PM, Henry Rich wrote:
> The whole point of operation in place is to avoid having to cop
The whole point of operation in place is to avoid having to copy an
in-placeable argument; copying the argument would not be a good solution.
After hearing the screams and dodging the dead cats, I have some proposals:
1. Early assignment (which is what we'll call the act of assigning an
interm
22 matches
Mail list logo
