Oh, sorry.
However, if you look at the copy of your message below my
reply, both still appearing hereunder, you'll see something rather like
|
|: ; ((]`".) @. isChar) &.> '3';33;'9 99';12 13;1;2;'10 11 1e6'
|
(I've typed in the 3 vertical bars at the left-hand side!)
In any case, it looked a bit odd! As I recall, what the iPad showed
at the
lhs resembled monadic transpose, |: ! It definitely wasn't >: .
The iPad doesn't have the message any more, so I can't easily check
directly.
No matter - sorry I commented on that, but the essential points were
made,
that there are pleasing ways of dealing with these mixed types which can
avoid using gerunds.
Cheers,
Mike
On 26/02/2023 19:19, Devon McCormick wrote:
The second result was simply an increment to demonstrate that the result is
numeric.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 6:28 AM 'Mike Day' via Programming <
programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
This is quite nice, though nothing to do with gerunds as such!
; ]&.":each '3';33;'9 99';12 13;1;2;'10 11 1e6'
3 33 9 99 12 13 1 2 10 11 1000000
I have been known to use ".@": - but using under only just occurred to me!
This also works:
abc =. 2345
; ]&.": each '3';33;'9 99';12 13;1;2;'10 11 1e6';'abc'
3 33 9 99 12 13 1 2 10 11 1000000 2345
though using names could prove difficult without building in some checks:
; ]&.": each '3';33;'9 99';12 13;1;2;'10 11 1e6';'def';'abc' NB.
def is undefined
3 33 9 99 12 13 1 2 10 11 1000000 2345
Checking the boxed form for empty elements might suffice.
BTW, I'm puzzled by Devon's second "result": 4 34 10 etc. Perhaps a slip
with
copy&paste?
Cheers,
Mike
Sent from my iPad
On 26 Feb 2023, at 09:48, Devon McCormick <devon...@gmail.com> wrote:
If you don't want to be at the mercy of your data's ordering, you could
selectively convert to numeric or not:
isChar=: ' ' -: [: ({.) 0 $ ]
; ((]`".) @. isChar) &.> '3';33;'9 99';12 13;1;2;'10 11 1e6'
3 33 9 99 12 13 1 2 10 11 1000000
: ; ((]`".) @. isChar) &.> '3';33;'9 99';12 13;1;2;'10 11 1e6'
4 34 10 100 13 14 2 3 11 12 1000001
On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 4:39 PM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Now that gerund"n applies gerund cyclically, the need for the oblique
trick is reduced.
Henry Rich
On 2/25/2023 3:26 PM, neit...@gaertner.de wrote:
I want to convert the second one into numerical data
Can you simplify the above expression?
Applying a gerund cyclically, as asked for in the subject:
] list =. ;: 'foo 1 bar 2.17 baz 3.14'
+---+-+---+----+---+----+
|foo|1|bar|2.17|baz|3.14|
+---+-+---+----+---+----+
, ]`(".each)/. list
+---+-+---+----+---+----+
|foo|1|bar|2.17|baz|3.14|
+---+-+---+----+---+----+
(,: datatype each) , ]`(".each)/. list
+-------+-------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
|foo |1 |bar |2.17 |baz |3.14 |
+-------+-------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
|literal|boolean|literal|floating|literal|floating|
+-------+-------+-------+--------+-------+--------+
Obliquing over a vector is often overlooked. It picks up every item
as a singleton "diagonal". The final "," is required to compensate
for that.
Martin Neitzel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
Devon McCormick, CFA
Quantitative Consultant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
