Hello Terrence;
Given that this ordering is as old as APL, thus as old as I am, and I do
not recall having seen an explanation, I would also be interested in one.
A thought: the #: (Antibase) verb follows the same pattern, as did APL's
decode (or was it encode? dualities always throw me) with a default left
argument of 2 in the monadic case. It sctually returns the same result
when the left argument is a scalar:
3 #: 10
1
3 | 10 NB. Veery intestingk.
1
Nitpicky questions are the new poster's job. If you want negative
reactions to a novice, ask a Perl "monk" a question.
Terrence Brannon wrote:
It seems that the Residue function should follow the same argument order as %
It does not seem consistent or intuitive for the arguments to be reversed.
What motivated this decision? I spent 5 minutes about to tear my hair out trying
to figure out the results I was getting from Residue.
7 % 2
3.5
2 | 7 NB. would be 7 | 2 if I were designing J :)
1
I'm sorry to ask what seem like such nitpicky little questions, but I got a
great answer regarding Passive, so perhaps I am just ignorant of some loftier
motivation for such argument calling conventions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
later ...
<pre>------------------------------------------------------------------------
|\/| Randy A MacDonald | APL: If you can say it, it's done.. (ram)
|/\| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|\ | | The only real problem with APL is that
BSc(Math) UNBF'83 | it is "still ahead of its time."
Sapere Aude | - Morten Kromberg
Natural Born APL'er | Looking for a whip-smart APL developer <a href="mailto:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]">Send me a note</a>
-----------------------------------------------------(INTP)----{ gnat }-</pre>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
