reduce2 =: (((&.>)/)(>@:))(@:(<"_1@:[ , <@:]))
reduce3 =: ((((&.>)/)\.)(>@:))(@:(<"_1@:[ , <@:]))
Rdot =: 2 : '>@:(u&.>(n aar 5!:0))@:(<"_1@:[ , <@:])'
Rdot1 =: 2 : '>@:(u&.>(n aar 5!:0))@:(<"_1@:[ ,~ <@:])'
+ reduce2
@:(+&.>/)@:(<"_1@:[ , <@:])
+ Rdot '/'
@:(+&.>/)@:(<"_1@:[ , <@:])
+ reduce2
@:(+&.>/)@:(<"_1@:[ , <@:])
+ reduce3
@:(+&.>/\.)@:(<"_1@:[ , <@:])
+ Rdot '/\.'
@:(+&.>/\.)@:(<"_1@:[ , <@:])
They are grouped by equivalent use. Rdot1 reverses the order, but the
only point of that seems to use (Rdot1 '/\') instead of Rdot '/\.'
Rdot1
'/\' could easily have a reduce4 adverb "predefinition".
The first thing you seem to be missing is using just / instead of /\.
Its a much more common use. The next point is that Ndot1 probably
should
use /\ instead of /\.
1 2 + Rdot'/'~ 1 2 3 4
11 12
1 2 + Rdot'/\.'~ 1 2 3 4
11 12
10 11
8 9
5 6
1 2
1 2 + Rdot1'/\'~ 1 2 3 4
1 2
2 3
4 5
7 8
11 12
Rdot1 isn't absolutely necessary because (u Rdot'/\.'~ |.) will produce
all of the same items in reverse order.
I don't think any other use case makes sense. And I don't see a monadic
application making sense either. A monad would just use / or /\. or /\
instead. The other model is:
reducE =: 1 : (':'; 'o=. x for_i. y do. o =. o u i end.')
which is the same as u~ reduce2~
The next point to notice is that the pattern (adverb) (>@:)(@:(<"_1@:[
,
<@:])) imposes a guarantee on its u argument to produce a consistent
shape. In terms of looking for special code, there's just 2 necessary
patterns on the left: (&.>/) or (&.>/\.)
bit 1: if / and /\. are the only practical uses of this, then the
result
can always be unboxed at the end. because u&.>/ started with 2 boxes
on.
If u wants to add "extra" box layers, then u can do so, and it is up to
u
to figure out a consistent interpretation. Usually pretty
straightforward,
but I'd need to see a use case for bit1 "auto-boxing" that is diffucult
to
do in u.
imo bit0 is not needed, but bit 2 is / or /\. . A 3rd conceivable use
that may be too esoteric is instead of (<"_1@:[ , <@]) :
<@(<\@:[ ,. <@]) or
<@(<\.@:[ ,. <@])
this builds boxes of lists of boxes, and is different from the "core
pattern" I described above. What seems to actually be the core pattern
is
the 2:
((&.>)/)(>@:)(list of boxings adverb)
((&.>)/\.)(>@:)(list of boxings adverb)
where the "list of boxings adverb" could be limited to:
@:(u(<"_1@:) , v(<@:)) and maybe
@:(u(<"_1@:) ,~ v(<@:))
u and v can maybe even be limited to [ ]
there's a similar pattern in ,&< ... We know that both sides (and that
count = 2) were homogeneous prior to their boxings. In the case of
(>@:)(list of boxings adverb)
we know that u (to left of this adverb) must create a homogeneous result
(or error). In addition to fold/scan operations, u can also be
something
like x&{ leaf.
in the context of fold/scan,
fold(initialstate, array, function) the u and v in the above pattern are
initialstate and array. As you know, the optimization potential is that
they never have to be boxed. The point of the rambling, is that there
is a
more general pattern in (>@:)(@:(boxing of 2 variables verb))
I'd recommend against putting an extra function parameter for twiddling
(reversing) x or y. I think its better for user to pretweak them, or
they
can write/use a modifier that adds the functionality.
about v,
your implementation I think means that it can only be a noun, and so I
think the result would always have a compatible shape, and so no need to
box it. An alternative to a v parameter to function is special code for
(v {"_1 (bound N.)), and then consider {. {: # without the "_1
restriction.
(v {"1 _1 L:0 _ (bound N.)) might also solve the box/no box bit.
A problem with having a v embedded parameter in the modifier is that it
may be a function of the data. 90%+ of the time, you will want all of
it.
A selection formula might be (<@i.@#"_1 {"1 _1 leaf ]) even though the
same (selection vector) value would most likely be generated for all
items. Basically having a v parameter embedded in the modifier would
mean
instead of
v&{&.> u&.>/\. (<"_1 y) , <x
have
v&.> u&.>/\. (<"_1 y) , <x
This would let ] be a simple v parameter to get the full results. In
terms of optimization, you may not need to care whether # or {. is used.
The shape is not guaranteed linear either, so v may be much more complex
than a noun argument to { .
The v parameter is obviously not needed for / version. Seperate
functions are good if you accept that both are useful. But you can also
look at it as 3 function patterns
u (((&.>)/)(>@:))(@:(boxing of 2 variables)) (reduce2)
u reduce3(v&>@:) NB. /\. version
u reduce3(v&.>@:)
But for the latter 2, it may be better and simpler to do it through
special code detection? If you call either
(u reduce3)(v&.>@:)
or
v&.>@:(u reduce3)
then v can get "optimized within the main loop"
----- Original Message -----
From: Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com>
To: Source forum <sou...@jsoftware.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 8:43 PM
Subject: [Jsource] Proposal for new looping primitive x N.
As Marshall once noted, the biggest deficiency in J is looping over an
array when you need a result from each iteration, and the calculation
requires an initial value and some internal state. Your code looks like
result {"_1 f/\. array , initialstate
where each execution of f produces a result value plus the internal
state to feed into the next iteration. The problems are:
* the result is the entire array of internal state, which is more, maybe
MUCH more than you need, since the final result needs only a portion of
the state
* The state is probably not commensurate with a item of the array, so
you end up boxing the initial state and the array items, which is very
wasteful.
I propose a new primitive, call it N. (for insert). N. is an adverb
that produces a conjunction. In (x N.), x specifies options for the
processing, much as the right operand of u;.n does.
Definition:
[x] u (n N.) v y
where
u is the function to be applied
v is the selector to apply to the result of each execution of u, to
produce the part saved in the final result
x is the (optional) initial value (if omitted, f is applied first
between the last 2 items of y)
y is the argument array
n selects from several variants:
bit 0=0 operation goes back to front
bit 0=1 operation goes front to back, as if using &.|.
bit 1=0 selected result from each iteration becomes one item of
result
bit 1=1 selected result from each iteration is boxed before
becoming
an item of result
Formal definition:
Ndot0 =: 2 : 0
v&{@> u&.>/\. (<"_1 y)
:
v&{@> u&.>/\. (<"_1 y) , <x
)
Ndot1 =: 2 : 0
v&{@> u&.>/\.&.|. (<"_1 y)
:
v&{@> u&.>/\.&.|. (<"_1 y) ,~ <x
)
Ndot2 =: 2 : 0
v&{&.> u&.>/\. (<"_1 y)
:
v&{&.> u&.>/\. (<"_1 y) , <x
)
Ndot3 =: 2 : 0
v&{&.> u&.>/\.&.|. (<"_1 y)
:
v&{&.> u&.>/\.&.|. (<"_1 y) ,~ <x
)
Ndot =: 1 : 0
assert. m e. i. 4
select. m
case. 0 do. Ndot0
case. 1 do. Ndot1
case. 2 do. Ndot2
case. 3 do. Ndot3
end.
)
I look forward to criticism of this proposal.
Henry Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
