Roy A. Crabtree <roy.crabtree <at> gmail.com> writes: > > Mebbe I am missing the pint heah: > > Instead of > > (((A pp 2) pp 3) pp4)... > > what if you stated it as > > 4 pp 3 pp 2 pp A > > as a slightly more friendly way of looking at it?
that's slick - I like it! > > After all, you can always rewrite process_prime that way, or yes, instead of list process_prime integer it can be integer process_prime list > > ...provide a wrapper > > And that in turn should make the code a bit cleaner: > > i) generate your list (2 3 4 ...) 2 }. (i. 28) > ii) reverse it (4 3 2) |. ( 2 }. (i. 28) ) > iii) scan apply it to A. scan is beyond me... help needed. > > Now: restate that recursively in lazy evaluative form ... say what? > > because: ... > > > A ( [: > process_prime~&.>/ <"0 <at> |. <at> ] , < <at> [) > > > 2}.i.28 > > after i.28, the rest of it seems like a hole lotta syntax for what should > be > > reverse, append, scan/reduce.... amen. it cracks me up when someone knows so much that he/she overlooks the simple elegant solutions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
