Bob,
Yes. That's what I wanted.
I'm not completely sure about your comment about the necessity of boxing
and unboxing, though.
I changed your each to every and got an unboxed result just like the result
you gave, but I think your comment is deeper and I want to think more about
it.
I especially want to ponder how you got around the problem I had earlier:
My first choice was to have just a single amend of the form r=: i m}"2 w
where
m =. combis<"1@:{2<\i. 3 NB. (your name for m is ind)
Maybe instead of i and w I could use I and W in r =: I m}"2 W
where I and W are respectively I=:4 copies i and W=:4 copies w (where
copies =: $ ,:) .
But that hasn't worked for me because the atoms in m apply to ALL items of
i and w or I and W, rather than to just the I and W items in their
respective, individual boxed index pairs. Maybe that's the part that you
are talking about when you mention the requirement for boxing and unboxing?
Raul,
I was really composing a response to you when Bob's response appeared, and
much of paragraph above which begins "I especially want ..." was being
drafted to you. So perhaps, you can better understand where I was coming
from.
I got stuck trying to test your example j excerpts because of spelling
errors on the core of the excerpt:
2 :’m y}n’”2
|spelling error
| 2 :’m y}n’”2
| ^
Thanks a bunch to both of you,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
