> surely it is much more important for +"1 and plus"1
> to produce absolutely the same results. 

Surely?  How does it know that + and plus are the same?

plus=: 4 : 0 " 0
 if. ?2e9 do. x+y else. x-y end.
)

And can you tell me why this question (the shape of 
5+"1 (0 1$' ')) has more practical interest than the 
number of angels that can dance on a transistor?



----- Original Message -----
From: Henry Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, July 5, 2006 5:25 pm
Subject: RE: [Jbeta] Incorrect result shape from  5 +"1 (0 1 $' ')

> The shape calculus that the interpreter 'knows' should
> include the type.
> 
> You give a good rule for how zero frame is handled.
> There is no reason to require 5 +"1 s$0  to give
> the same result as 5 +"1 s$'a' ; at least none that
> justifies deviating from that rule, IMO.
> 
> Whatever shape calculus is built into the interpreter
> should match the rule.  We could debate whether
> f 0 1$'a'  should or should not match  f 0 1$0, but
> surely it is much more important for +"1 and plus"1
> to produce absolutely the same results.  They almost
> do now, and if you follow your rule, they will completely.
> 
> 
> "It's not what the interpreter doesn't know that hurts
> you; it's what the interpreter knows that ain't so."
> -- traditional
> 
> Henry Rich
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R&S HUI
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 7:19 PM
> > To: Beta forum
> > Subject: Re: [Jbeta] Incorrect result shape from 5 +"1 (0 1 $' ')
> > 
> > There are competing rationale for what the result of  
> > 5+"1 (0 1$'a')  should be.  A pretty strong one is
> > the identity
> > 
> >    s -: $ 5 +"1 s$0  [ s=: 10 ? 100
> > 
> > So $ 5+"1 (0 1$' ')  should be 0 1 , and it is the 
> > other results that are "wrong".
> > 
> > I say "wrong" because that is the best that the 
> > interpreter can do.  For an arbitrary verb (of which  
> > plus=: 4 : 'x+y'"0  and  plus=:+  are examples) the 
> > interpreter can not figure out in general what the 
> > shape of the result should be.
> > 
> > The rule is something like this for a zero frame:
> > If the interpreter "knows" the shape calculus for a verb, 
> > it applies it.  If it does not, it applies the verb to a 
> > cell of fills, and assumes that the shape of the result 
> > is typical; and if in such application there is an error, 
> > it assumes the result is an atom.  And: what the interpreter 
> > "knows" can expand from version to version.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Henry Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 12:04 pm
> > Subject: RE: [Jbeta] Incorrect result shape from  5 +"1 (0 1 $' ')
> > 
> > >   plus =: +
> > >   $ 5 plus"1 (0 1 $' ')
> > > 0
> > > 
> > > This works correcly too, so I guess integrated rank support
> > > in + is implicated.
> > > 
> > > Henry Rich 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Henry Rich
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 2:56 PM
> > > > To: 'Beta forum'
> > > > Subject: [Jbeta] Incorrect result shape from 5 +"1 (0 1 $' ')
> > > > 
> > > > The rules are not made explicit for what happens when a
> > > > verb fails when applied to a fill cell, but I have deduced
> > > > by experiment that the interpreter behaves as if the
> > > > failing result were a scalar numeric.  Thus:
> > > > 
> > > >    plus =: 4 : 'x + y'"0
> > > >    $ 5 plus"1 (0 1 $' ')
> > > > 0
> > > > 
> > > > Correct: 5 +"1 (1 $ ' ') failed, so ($0) was used as the
> > > > result shape from the fill-cell, and that was extended with
> > > > the frame (,0) to give a final result shape of ,0 .
> > > > 
> > > >    $ 5 +"1 (0 1 $' ')
> > > > 0 1
> > > > 
> > > > Incorrect: should be the same result as above, but apparently
> > > > special code for the + verb did not take into account the
> > > > subtleties of fill-cell processing and assigned the result
> > > > to have the same shape as the array operand.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to