Why would g matter, in this context?

Thanks,

-- 
Raul

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh, yeah.  Thanks.
>
> I guess there is a possible improvement, but it would take some work to
> make sure the verbs haven't changed.
>
> Or maybe precompute the inverse if g is name-free?
>
> Henry
>
>
>
> On 9/18/2016 11:41 AM, Roger Hui wrote:
>
>> If f=:g&.:h where h is a named verb, and subsequently you change h ...
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nosing around in cu.c I find
>>>
>>> static DF1(jtundco1){DECLFG; R df1( w,atop(inv(gs),ampco(fs,gs)));}
>>>
>>> This is the routine that executes on the verb derived from u&.:v .
>>>
>>> What I don't understand is why the calculation of the inverse and &: and
>>> @
>>> are not performed before the derived verb is created.  That result could
>>> be
>>> stored in h, which would shorten this code to
>>>
>>> static DF1(jtundco1){DECLFGH; R df1(  w,hs);}
>>>
>>> As it is, the inverse calculation etc are performed every time the verb
>>> is
>>> executed on data.
>>>
>>> Can anyone show cause why this calculation should not be performed during
>>> the execution of &.: rather than in the derived verb?
>>>
>>> Henry
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to