Maybe like this? We write all tacit J expressions like explicit J and
then we convert them to tacit J? We can write tacit J with explicit J
notation?
ts'(13 :''----y'' )i. 100000000'
2.7528 3.22123e9
/Erling
On 2016-08-06 23:29, Erling Hellenäs wrote:
The expressions seem equivalent. Why should I prefer the first one?
ts'(13 :''-(-(-(-(y))))'' )i. 100000000'
2.76482 3.22123e9
ts'([: - [: - [: - [: - ])i. 100000000'
2.78595 3.22123e9
/Erling
On 2016-08-06 23:06, Erling Hellenäs wrote:
You think that instead of the strawman I should use this expression?
13 :'-(-(-(-(y))))'1
1
/Erling
On 2016-08-06 22:47, Raul Miller wrote:
The obvious tacit expression would be the one generated by 13
:'u1(u2(u3(u4(y))))'
But note that this may generate different expressions, depending on
the values of u1, u2, u3 and/or u4. (The default behavior, if they are
not defined, is to assume that they are all verbs.)
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
