I have
if.1=#e=.,(])`((is&(,@;))/)@.(1<#)([:(a:&~:#])<"1@(w(-.@([e.])#[)w((-.@((i.@#@])e.(([(=i.1:)])"0
1)))#])])@;@((1<#@>)#])@:,"2@((F=.<"1 frc q){]))y do.
I think this could still be valid if one uses an extra dimension without
boxing. The agenda's y is a list of boxes. After the empty ones are removed
beforehand, one may end up with '', whereupon the 1 gerund gives me an error,
so I had to discriminate. is has rank _ _ _, and so does ], but the shape of
their results is either '' or <:1 . I'd hope I'm not overlooking something.
Jul 26, 2022, 05:51 by [email protected]:
> Have you ever written code using @., as in u`v @. w, where the ranks of the
> results of u and v differ from one another (for a given rank of x/y)? If so,
> can you post a self-contained snippet? (Don't worry about being runnable; I
> just want to get a general idea of the code patterns.)
>
> Further stipulations:
>
> - Should not rely on boxing (incidental use of boxes, eg as record types, is
> ok)
>
> - Equivalent use of explicit control structures or u^:p (for predicate noun
> or verb p) is ok
>
> Also interested in usage of / or folds where the accumulator rank changes
> over time (especially if it continues to change after the 1st iteration).
>
> Thanks!
>
> -E
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
