Yes, or ([: 11&+ _100000&%) 1 Or 11 _100000&p.@:% 1
Meaning exists outside of the language, but the point of the language is to express concepts (especially some frequently useful concepts from mathematics). Thanks, -- Raul On Wednesday, August 3, 2016, Erling Hellenäs <[email protected]> wrote: > Then we get this? > ([: 1&+[:(10&-)[:(100&*)[:(1000&%) ]) 1 > > _99989 > > (1&+@:(10&-)@:(100&*)@:(1000&%) ) 1 > > _99989 > > /Erling > > > > On 2016-08-03 21:49, Raul Miller wrote: > >> Yes, and the @:]"_ is redundant for any and all verbs u1 u2 u3 and u4. >> And ([: u1 [:u2 u3@:u4) is another example equivalent... >> >> Moreover, for a good example, the choice of u1 u2 u3 and u4 also matters. >> >> More generally, though, it's good to focus on the practical problem >> solving issues first and then bring the language to bear on solving >> that problem. Doing it the other way around leads to bad language >> decisions. >> >> Cheesy examples can be useful in some contexts (for example, in >> debugging), but they tend to be rather bad for language design. >> >> That said, note that getting into real examples also allows rephrasing >> based on the meaning of what is being dealt with. >> >> For a hopefully-not-too-cheesy example, consider: >> >> u1=: -&1 >> u2=: ^&0.5 >> u3=: +&1 >> u4=: ^&2 >> >> Since u1 @: u2 @: u3 @: u4 (or other variants) winds up being an >> algebraic expression, you can use algebra to rephrase the expression. >> But this is a good thing. >> >> Thanks, >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
