Yes, you're right. I said "one by one" cause I suppose the limitation doing so. I get the so-called "limit error", (overly large resultant). That's why I turned back to one-by-one manner. I am sure that you would find another strategy to do so but that's the only way I can think of for the moment.
Actually, in this procedure I call two verbs one for reading and one for writing. The one that reads the data needs an 'input path' and the one that performs the writing needs 'an output' path. In between I would call another result (a table, fill with numbers) in which I would do some kind of calculation and together with 'read input file' I feed the 'writing verb' for the final result. And my point was how to write a verb that could read "input", "output", "table" (one by one or row by row) and performs those actions (for 50 times, depends on the number of inputs / outputs / rows of table ). or I could read only "the table" (row by row) and append the table's "row number" at the end of input and output path name. Raul Miller-4 wrote: > > Well... J does have control structures, though only in explicit verbs > (and explicit adverbs and explicit conjunctions): > http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/ctrl.htm > > That said, when you say "one by one" it's usually a good idea to say > why you want to do things that way. "One by one" processing in J > tends to be slow, so mostly it's a good fit for things that already > take a while (then you can ignore the extra millisecond? needed to > handle each item, one by one). File processing probably fits, > though... > > Anyways, the way you are currently describing things, I think I would > want to identify files by index number (1..50), and then I would have > a verb that gives me the read file name for an index number and > another verb that gives me the write file name for an index number. > Then I could write a routine to process a file index and it could use > these verbs to determine which file pair to work on. Or, if it was > the only verb to deal with these files, maybe I would just hard-code > the algorithm into the verb itself. > > But I might be failing to understand something important about your > computations? > > -- > Raul > > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/path-variable-in-loop-tp34413608s24193p34415702.html Sent from the J Programming mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
