I don't think it's illegal. The spec (Ye Dic, here) is incomplete. It
says what will be done if there is a verb train but is silent about
other trains.
What the implementation does is accept any train and evaluate it.
Thinking about it I don't see anything else you could do with a train; &
I'm getting a very odd-looking error in both J 8.07 and J 9.01:
{ 2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3
jprx zn
|system error
Changing one number results in no error:
${ 1 2 3 3;2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3
4 4 4
Has anyone else seen this? Can others reproduce it?
Thanks,
Devon
--
Devon McCormick, CFA
Quantitat
OK - even weirder:
${ 2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3
4 4 4
{ 2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3
jprx zn
|system error
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:54 PM Devon McCormick wrote:
> I'm getting a very odd-looking error in both J 8.07 and J 9.01:
>{ 2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3
> jprx zn
> |system error
>
> Changing
I cannot reproduce this error in j8.07. j8.07 or j9.01 (release e).
FYI,
--
Raul
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:55 PM Devon McCormick wrote:
>
> I'm getting a very odd-looking error in both J 8.07 and J 9.01:
>{ 2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3
> jprx zn
> |system error
>
> Changing one number results i
It's probably something funny with my emacs session.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:59 PM Raul Miller wrote:
> I cannot reproduce this error in j8.07. j8.07 or j9.01 (release e).
>
> FYI,
>
> --
> Raul
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:55 PM Devon McCormick
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm getting a very odd-lookin
FWIW, that system error occurs during formatting of long output. What
do you get from executing
9!:36''
?
Henry Rich
On 3/10/2020 3:54 PM, Devon McCormick wrote:
I'm getting a very odd-looking error in both J 8.07 and J 9.01:
{ 2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3
jprx zn
|system error
Changing
Here's what I got:
{ 2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3
┌─┬─┬─┬─┐
│2 2 2│2 2 2│2 2 3│2 2 3│
├─┼─┼─┼─┤
│2 2 2│2 2 2│2 2 3│2 2 3│
├─┼─┼─┼─┤
│2 3 2│2 3 2│2 3 3│2 3 3│
├─┼─┼─┼─┤
│2 3 2│2 3 2│2 3 3│2 3 3│
└─┴─┴─┴─┘
┌─┬─
I get this:
9!:36''
0 256 18 20
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:26 PM Henry Rich wrote:
> FWIW, that system error occurs during formatting of long output. What
> do you get from executing
>
> 9!:36''
>
> ?
>
> Henry Rich
>
> On 3/10/2020 3:54 PM, Devon McCormick wrote:
> > I'm getting a very o
With that setting of 9!:37, ({ 2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3;2 2 3 3) has one line
replaced by ... which is where the message comes from.
However, I can't make it fail. I am running Windows.
Henry Rich
On 3/10/2020 4:38 PM, Devon McCormick wrote:
I get this:
9!:36''
0 256 18 20
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 a
FWIIW I wrote the original version of this. Never tried to build FLANN on
windows (I've never run J on windows), so no idea what it does there.
I haven't touched it in a long time, but I confirm there is something wrong
with it on my laptop/flann1.9/ubuntu 18.04 LTS and J901. Either something
in t
If you could mention a relevant test, someone could check whether it's
valid on older versions of J.
(The J package release process is versioned against the J engine.)
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 7:27 PM Scott Locklin
wrote:
> FWIIW I wrote the original version of this. Never tri
It comes with a test script.
But, let me reiterate: libflann appears to be an orphaned and possibly
obsolete project. If I restart fiddling with metric space trees again, I'll
make sure to put it in my githubs.
-SL
If you could mention a relevant test, someone could check whether it's
valid on
// If there were internal EOLs, it is possible that the result contains
more lines than called for in the output
// control. We go back through the data now, to get it right. If we are
just one line over, there's no gain from
// suppressing one line, so let it go
if(lc>1+lba)zv=dropl(zu,zv,lb
Sorry, I don't follow. Can you show the problem with a simple testcase?
(The comments are mine but I didn't write the code)
Henry Rich
On 3/10/2020 11:02 PM, bill lam wrote:
// If there were internal EOLs, it is possible that the result contains
more lines than called for in the output
//
> I don't think it's illegal. The spec (Ye Dic, here) is incomplete. It
That is good to know.
> I don't see anything bad coming from executing a train containing
> non-verbs; so I would vote to expand the spec to include all trains.
I do not see anything bag coming either, on the contrary.
>
Sorry I can't. I don't know emacs.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:07 AM Henry Rich wrote:
> Sorry, I don't follow. Can you show the problem with a simple testcase?
>
> (The comments are mine but I didn't write the code)
>
> Henry Rich
>
> On 3/10/2020 11:02 PM, bill lam wrote:
> > // If there wer
I don't see anything to object to here. There are gerunds and adverbs,
producing trains that evaluate properly.
By The Wise I mean the /ulama/ of J (neminem nominabo, genus hominum
significasse contentus) You know who you are.
Henry Rich
On 3/10/2020 11:34 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
Could I change this 9!:36 setting to get it to work?
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:41 PM bill lam wrote:
> Sorry I can't. I don't know emacs.
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:07 AM Henry Rich wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I don't follow. Can you show the problem with a simple testcase?
> >
> > (The comments
18 matches
Mail list logo
