On 9/28/07, Roger Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > v x:@+//. n is a curious phrase and does not achieve the intent > expressed in your msg.
As long as the initial integer pair does not overflow (if this is a problem, it could be easily achieved by adding a 0 on the right end of the list), x:@+/ would seem to me to achieve the expressed intent. Additionally, x:@+/ has significantly lower memory requirements than +/@x: That said, +&x:/ might be clearer than x:@+/ -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
