On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 3:28 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote: > I understand your metashape and data concept to be (using my prior > example): > > (3 2 2 ,: 4 1 1) $ i.16 > > would let code know that there are 12 items in 1st array, and 4 in 2nd.
That example matches how I am currently thinking about this, yes. > And then I understand your metarank concept would be the way to tell > if that 2nd array's shape is 4 vs 4 1 1. A list equal to items in > "metashape" might be what you meant? My thinking is that the metashape would be a matrix, which would mean that each row would have to contain the same number of elements. However, it would be a sparse matrix (meaning that the 1s in the shape would be represented implicitly and would appear as fill, in operations on the metashape). > It would seem like boxed shapes would provide the same information with I am sure that a boxed representation could represent the same information, but boxes are irregular -- so it does not make sense to me to introduce a higher degree of regularity using boxes as the core data model. > data/metadata being a rank1/list array whose length is +/@:(*/&>) > boxed/meta shape How would this be better than a rank 1 list of boxed arrays? Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
