Thanks.
On 8/31/23 6:47 PM, bill lam wrote:
You can type less
9!:11]8
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 at 7:11 AM ppadilcdx wrote:
Perhaps another nitpick but for the subject query no parentheses are
required, i.e., 9!:10 '' prints the current precision but, 9!:11
requires parentheses for it to parse
You can type less
9!:11]8
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 at 7:11 AM ppadilcdx wrote:
> Perhaps another nitpick but for the subject query no parentheses are
> required, i.e., 9!:10 '' prints the current precision but, 9!:11
> requires parentheses for it to parse correctly, e.g. (9!:11) 8
>
> Perhaps the
Like this?
bangco=: {{
if. 1<#n do.
m!:({.n)}.n
else.
m!:n
end.
}}
9 bangco 11 8
?
--
Raul
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 8:09 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via General
wrote:
>
> I don't know whether it would be a language improvement or not, but:
> A conjunction variation could be defined
I don't know whether it would be a language improvement or not, but:
A conjunction variation could be defined for atom n only, and if it encounters
a list, it just uses the first item of the list and applies itself to remainder.
But !: can be done directly
linearize =: (, $~ 1 -.~ $)@] NB.
This is an issue in many contexts.- a sequence of numbers separated by
spaces is treated as a single list.
This subject is actually mentioned in a variety of contexts, though
it's not called out as an issue in the examples I reviewed. So I don't
know where I'd send a user to read about the issue.
Perhaps another nitpick but for the subject query no parentheses are
required, i.e., 9!:10 '' prints the current precision but, 9!:11
requires parentheses for it to parse correctly, e.g. (9!:11) 8
Perhaps the relevant pages should make note of when parentheses are
required. I had forgotten
