Answer to Q1 a2 =: ] (] , ] + _1 + 3*2^2-~[) ([:i.1+2^2-~]) Answer to Q2 It's recalculated. See the following.
echo=: 1!:2&2 f=: *:@echo , 3 * *:@echo f 5 5 5 25 75 ----- Original Message ----- From: Arie Groeneveld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, November 2, 2007 9:28 Subject: [Jprogramming] xpliicit v tacit To: Programming forum <[email protected]> > Dear xperts J-ers, > > Here are two versions for aiken code generation > based on the same algorithm. > > +-------+-------+ > |bin |aiken | > +-------+-------+ > |0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0| > |0 0 0 1|0 0 0 1| > |0 0 1 0|0 0 1 0| > |0 0 1 1|0 0 1 1| > |0 1 0 0|0 1 0 0| > |0 1 0 1|1 0 1 1| > |0 1 1 0|1 1 0 0| > |0 1 1 1|1 1 0 1| > |1 0 0 0|1 1 1 0| > |1 0 0 1|1 1 1 1| > +-------+-------+ > > > I. > aikenDX1=:3 :'(,(<:3*2^y-2)+])i.1+2^y-2' > --------- > A > > II. > aikenD=:([:i.1+2^2-~]),([:<:3*2^2-~])+[:i.1+2^2-~] > ------------- > ------------ > A B > > (aikenDX1 -: aikenD) 21 > 1 > > Observation shows that verb I is a bit faster. > > Q1: Is it possible to make version I tacit not > in the way of verb II? > (I expect not: y has to be known on two levels > of tacit as I may put it that way, but ...?) > > Q2: In verb II parts A and B are the same. > Will A be a copy of B (optimization) > or is it calculated/generated again? > > Q3: other approaches for a solution ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
