I enjoy decapitating capped forks in a flash using one of my favorite
wicked adverbs (decap),
( NoProblem=. see f.decap )
i.@:[ +/ i.@:(#~)
3 NoProblem 2
0 1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9 10
Decap replaces the form ([: u v) by (u@:v). If for whatever reason one
wants to avoid @: in favor of @ (and ") then the form (u@:v) could always
be replaced by (u@v”_),
3 (i.@["_ +/ i.@(#~)"_) 2
0 1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9 10
Sometimes one can get away by simply replacing @: by @,
3 (i.@[ +/ i.@(#~) ) 2
0 1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9 10
By the way, when the meaning of an expression is undefined; for example, in,
`/
|syntax error
| `/
An enlighten person could modify the official interpreted and assign a new,
or an ancient, meaning to that form (the conjunction adverb form in the
example above) extending the current J language. However, in your sentence:
[:>:i.4
|domain error
| [:>:i.4
that is not the case. So, either the monadic definition of [: would have
to changed (and most likely someone's existing code would brake) or our
beloved sophisticated simple parsing rules would have to be alter (and the
sky would fall).
Thus, "If the hill will not come to Mahomet, Mahomet will go to the hill"
comes to mind.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Linda Alvord <lindaalv...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> Brian, I like 9!: combinaions. Is it true that you can always remove [:
> from
> a tacit monadic function?
>
> Also, it doesn't seem to be possible to remove all of them from a dyadic
> verb. Here's some examples from code run in a terminal:
>
> 9!:3]5
> see=: 13 :'(i.x)+/i.y#x'
> 3 see 2
> 0 1 2
> 3 4 5
> 6 7 8
>
> 1 2 3
> 4 5 6
> 7 8 9
>
> 2 3 4
> 5 6 7
> 8 9 10
> see
> ([: i. [) +/ [: i. #~
> 9!:3]5
> cbB=: 13 :'<"0@>:@i.y'
> pairs=: 13 :'(>:@i. x),"0/>:@i. y'
> countB =: <@cb"1@pairs
>
> cbB
> <"0@>:@i.
> pairs
> ([: >:@i. [) ,"0/ [: >:@i. ]
> countB
> <@cb"1@pairs
>
> Linda
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com
> [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Brian
> Schott
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 2:34 PM
> To: Programming forum
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Source of frustration
>
> Raul,
>
> Yes, thanks.
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think you mean "tree representation" where you wrote "linear
> > representation".
> >
> > --
> (B=)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
