Thank you. Great news. I will test when beta comes out.
On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 08:22:41 p.m. EST, Henry Rich
<henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
I realized that I could just run the verb without the y argument to get
it back into normal order.
Then when I ran it on my current system it ran to completion! The
result was
+----------+-+
|+----+-+++|4|
||jpqm|7|||| |
|+----+-+++| |
+----------+-+
The difference is probably that just this afternoon I realized that F.
didn't behave well in 5!:n, and also produced an empty result when
appearing in (u f.) . I fixed those bugs before running your test.
So I went back to an older version and reproduced the error you saw.
After adding typeout to the script I see that the y argument being
passed in to Fold_j_ is not a noun. That produces chaos.
I'm going to hope that the bugs I fixed today got rid of the problem.
The fixes might or might not be in the next beta.
Henry Rich
On 12/8/2022 8:13 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
> A definition of F02 that eliminates all of my other boiler plate or potential
> sources of error is
>
> F02 =: 2 : '(u`)(`v)(`:6)' NB. still produces same reported errors
>
> + -: F02 +:
>
> -: + +:
>
> + {{-: u +:}}
>
> -: + +:
>
> + -: F02 +: 3
>
> 7.5
>
> activating debug does not interupt the " noun result was required" error
>
> full error is
>
> |noun result was required
> | fwd+rev
>
>
> which (fwd+rev) is expression that appears only in if. clause near top of
> function.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 07:37:32 p.m. EST, Henry Rich
> <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> The noun result message comes from the execution of the Fold_j_ verb,
> which does the processing. It means that somehow, in executing your u/v
> arguments, the result was not a noun.
>
> I don't understand your way of coding and don't want to. If you can
> give a simple example of something that is creating a wrong result, I'll
> fix it. I think you are right that there is a JE error, because it
> shouldn't be possible to get a non-noun result from executing a verb.
>
> The script that runs F. is ~addons/dev/fold/foldr.ijs. You can add
> debug statements to that script to type out values so you can see what
> failed. I would do this myself if your code were less baroque.
>
> Henry Rich
>
> On 12/8/2022 7:24 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
>> Not 100% sure it is bug in `:6 or the interaction with F..
>>
>> ex
>>
>> mjqjpqmgbljsphdztnvjfqwrcgsmlb
>>
>> ((1>:@{::]),&<~[,~ _3{.0{::])`(_2 Z:1:)@.(4=0#@~.@{::]) (] F..)
>>{{(4;~4{.]) u (4}.])}} ex NB. desired result
>>
>> ┌────┬─┐
>>
>> │jpqm│7│
>>
>> └────┴─┘
>>
>> where {{(4;~4{.]) u (4}.])}} is a preprocessing adverb alternative to a
>> fork, that will make a fork from its binding.
>>
>> code dump:
>>
>> isNoun =: (0 = 4!:0 ::0:)@:<
>> isgerund =: 0:`(0 -.@e. 3 : ('a =. y (5!:0)';'1')"0)@.(0 < L.) :: 0:
>> ar =: 1 : '5!:1 <''u'''
>> ari =: 1 : 'if. isNoun ''u'' do. if. (isgerund -.@+. '''' -: ]) m do. m ar
>> else. m end. else.u ar end.'
>> ti =: ari ` ari NB. different from doubleadverb2.ijs: '' is passed to ` .
>> boxed non gerund is ar'd ie a:`u
>> ti2 =: ar ` ar
>> F0 =: 1 : 'u ti ti `: 6'
>> v2c =: 1 : '[. u ].'
>> F1 =: 1 : '(ti u) ti (''''ti) `:6'
>> F2 =: 1 : 'ti ti u `: 6'
>> F01 =: ((ti (2 : 'ti')))(`:6)
>> F02 =: 2 : '(u`)(`v)(`:6)'
>> F02 =: ( ([.(2 : 'ti')) (2 : 'ti' ].) ) (`:6)
>> F12 =: (2 : 'ti' ti) `: 6
>>
>> The F02 conjunction returns an adverb and is identical in function to
>> {{(4;~4{.]) u (4}.])}} when it is used as (4;~4{.]) F02 (4}.]) (ie. it
>> binds params 0 and 2 of a fork, and waits to bind param 1 as an adverb)
>>
>> (4;~4{.]) ((1>:@{::]),&<~[,~ _3{.0{::])`(_2 Z:1:)@.(4=0#@~.@{::]) (]
>>F..) (4;~4{.]) F02 (4}.]) ex
>>
>> |noun result was required
>>
>> This seems like "too aggressive" invocation of "noun result expected" when
>> `:6 is involved. Perhaps as interaction with explicit conjuncitons.
>>
>> when "normal" parameters are given to adverb, everything works as expected.
>> including with intervening adverbs.
>>
>> [ ]: (4;~4{.]) F02 (4}.]) ex
>>
>> ┌────┬─┐
>>
>> │mjqj│4│
>>
>> └────┴─┘
>>
>>
>>
>> The following displays are just the first line of multiline definition of
>> Fold F..
>>
>> ((1>:@{::]),&<~[,~ _3{.0{::])`(_2 Z:1:)@.(4=0#@~.@{::]) (] F..)
>>(4;~4{.]) F02 (4}.])
>>
>> (4 ;~ 4 {. ]) ] (2 : 0) (((1 >:@({::) ]) ,&<~ [ ,~ _3 ({.) 0 {:: ])`(_2 Z:
>> 1:)@.(4 = 0 #@~.@({::) ])) 4 }. ] NB. first line leading multiline
>> definition (2 : 0 ) for F..
>>
>>
>>
>> ((1>:@{::]),&<~[,~ _3{.0{::])`(_2 Z:1:)@.(4=0#@~.@{::]) (] F..)
>>{{(4;~4{.]) u (4}.])}}
>> (4 ;~ 4 {. ]) ] (2 : 0) (((1 >:@({::) ]) ,&<~ [ ,~ _3 ({.) 0 {:: ])`(_2 Z:
>> 1:)@.(4 = 0 #@~.@({::) ])) 4 }. ] NB. identical
>>
>> replacing the output of the F02 version for 2 : 0 with F.., is correct
>>
>> ((4 ;~ 4 {. ]) ] F.. (((1 >:@({::) ]) ,&<~ [ ,~ _3 ({.) 0 {:: ])`(_2 Z:
>>1:)@.(4 = 0 #@~.@({::) ])) 4 }. ]) ex
>>
>> ┌────┬─┐
>>
>> │jpqm│7│
>>
>> └────┴─┘
>>
>> all of the modifiers that use `:6 fail with the same error. v2c (doesn't
>> use `:6, and is equivalent to F1) works.
>>
>> it doesn't appear to be a bug in "explicit conjunctions" (those that
>> reference x and y)
>>
>> - (+: 2 : 'x u@v y') -:@[ F02 (+:@])
>>
>> -:@[ +: (2 : (':'; 'x u@v y')) - +:@]
>> :
>> 2 - (+: 2 : 'x u@v y') -:@[ F02 (+:@]) 3
>>
>> _10 NB. 1 and 6 are result of v0 and v2. 1 +:@- 6 = _10
>>
>>
>> One possible fix that would make everything cleaner is if (] F..) did not
>> expand to explicit definition. It is not needed yet,as a primitive.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 02:34:58 p.m. EST, 'Pascal Jasmin' via
>> Programming <programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> mistake in Z definition found,
>>
>> Zl =: ] [ _3 Z: [
>>
>> makes this work,
>>
>> ((4;~4{.]) ((1>:@{::]),&<~[,~ _3{.0{::])`(_2 Z:1:)@.(4=0#@~.@{::]) ((100 Zl
>> ]) F..) (4}.])) ex
>>
>> but still
>>
>> ((4;~4{.]) ((1>:@{::]),&<~[,~ _3{.0{::])`(_2 Z:1:)@.(4=0#@~.@{::]) ((100 Zl
>> ]) F.) (4}.])) ex
>>
>> |domain error
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 02:15:39 p.m. EST, 'Pascal Jasmin' via
>> Programming <programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The short circuit you are trying to avoid is to skip the full partitioning
>> part
>>
>> 4 #@~.\4
>>
>> one approach is to separate into the simplest possible partition, then hope
>> that i. special code finds the short circuit.
>>
>> 4 + (1 i.~ 4 = #@~."1) 4 ]\ ex
>>
>> your power approach is completely reasonable.
>>
>> A fold approach is complicated by seeking the index rather than a "computed
>> result"
>>
>> There might be too much manipulated computation involved, but the general
>> approach would be:
>>
>> x parameter to fold is (a: ,< 0) NB. initial y.
>> if head cell of y is shorter than 4, then append x to last 3 chars. (better
>> to preprocess y such that x (to F.) has first 4 chars, and y omits first 4.)
>> if head is length 4, then apply test ((1 >:@{:: ] ) ,&<~ [,~ _3{.0{::])`(_2
>> Z: 1:)@.(4 = #@~. 0 {:: ])
>>
>> ((4;~4{.]) ((1>:@{::]),&<~[,~ _3{.0{::])`(_2 Z:1:)@.(4=0#@~.@{::]) (] F..)
>> (4}.])) ex
>> ┌────┬─┐
>> │jpqm│7│
>> └────┴─┘
>>
>> I don't understand why this fails: (F. instead of F..)
>>
>> Z =: ] [ Z:
>>
>>
>> ((4;~4{.]) ((1>:@{::]),&<~[,~ _3{.0{::])`(_2 Z:1:)@.(4=0#@~.@{::])
>>((100 Z~ _3:) F.) (4}.])) ex
>>
>> |domain error
>>
>> or
>>
>> ((4;~4{.]) ((1>:@{::]),&<~[,~ _3{.0{::])`(_2 Z:1:)@.(4=0#@~.@{::]) (]
>>F.) (4}.])) ex
>>
>> |domain error
>>
>>
>> also it is not documented whether F. or F: are forward or reverse.
>>
>> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 11:28:12 a.m. EST, 'Michael Day' via
>> Programming <programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Having remarked recently (re Advent of Code day 6):
>>
>> Very easy today, in J at least, and probably in APL & K/Q. (Though it
>> suggests one should learn the new fold features, as it's inefficient
>>to
>> examine all the data for something that might occur early. No problem
>> with 4kb, but ....)
>>
>> I've just had a look at the Jwiki entries about Fold, and wonder how it
>> would work
>> for day 6.
>>
>> The problem is so easy for J-ers that I don't think this will spoil it
>> for forum users:
>> ex
>> mjqjpqmgbljsphdztnvjfqwrcgsmlb
>> 4 + 4 i.~ 4 #@~.\ ex
>> 7
>>
>> QED
>>
>> #data NB. the size of my data set
>> 4096
>> ts'4 + 4 i.~ 4 #@~.\ data' NB. time & space
>> 0.0008555 67232
>>
>> I didn't bother making a function for this!
>>
>> One way to stop early, rather than process the whole array, is this:
>> ts'4 + (# - #@:((}.`])@.(4&([ = #@:~.@:{.))^:_)) data'
>> 0.0007299 4736
>>
>> (I know it's ugly, and non-optimal!)
>>
>> Similar time but with ca 14x space-saving.
>>
>> But there must be some sort of Fold to progressively examine 4-windows,
>> or 14-windows in part 2, until the first appropriate window is found,
>> when
>> it stops. That should save time as well as space. Not necessary
>> here, of
>> course, but if there was a real application with many megabytes of data...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/12/2022 19:46, Brian Schott wrote:
>>> I have successfully solved Day 5 using the following looping verb `tomove`
>>> but cannot craft a Fold version, and would like help.
>>>
>>> *[FYI I have included an attachment that seems to load and execute
>>> properly, but I could NOT get the email versions to load correctly,
>>> presumably because of some funny characters.]*
>>>
>>> tomove=: dyad define
>>> while. #y do.
>>> x=.x move {. y
>>> y =. }.y
>>> end.
>>> x
>>> )
>>>
>>>
>>> NB. The verb `move` for part 1 is very simple:
>>>
>>> move =: dyad define
>>> 'n f t'=. _1 1 1*y - 0 1 1
>>> take =. |.n{.>f{x
>>> left =. <n}.>f{x
>>> put =. <take,~>t{x
>>> (left,put) (f,t)}x
>>> )
>>>
>>> NB. the inputs are produced as follows.
>>>
>>> top =: 0 :0
>>> [D]
>>> [N] [C]
>>> [Z] [M] [P]
>>> 1 2 3
>>> )
>>>
>>> state=.deb each ;/ |:|.}:1 5 9&{;._2 top
>>>
>>> bottom =: 0 :0
>>> move 1 from 2 to 1
>>> move 3 from 1 to 3
>>> move 2 from 2 to 1
>>> move 1 from 1 to 2
>>> )
>>> alpha =. a. {~97+i.26
>>> moves =. ".-.&alpha ;._2 bottom
>>>
>>> NB. finally the result is produced by the next phrase
>>>
>>> {:every state tomove moves
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> For information about J forums seehttp://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
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
