can a closure always be unwound and compiled in the same way that recursion
can be converted to iteration? Even if yes, is this direction moving away
from J's key strengths. Is there another way to solve the problem at hand
that may lead to a something more elegant and scalable overall?
Flexibil
I have not yet seen a widespread use of closures in a language that allowed
them where it was a big advantage. I have had a few 'oh cool' closure moments,
but so far this has been isolated to specific cases... Like when defining a
function explicitly was tiring and interrupted the flow of thoug
I showed you how to replace &.: below. Same way you replaced those &s, only
you have to "undo" (mnemonic: under -> undo) v at the end.
SEE5A =: ([: (- (+/ % #)) [) (([: +/ *) % [: %: (([: +/ [: *: [) * [: +/ [: *:
])) [: (- (+/ % #)) ]
[There's a lot of unnecessary clutter in here, but I just
So far I removed all but &.:
gnp1955 SEE4A trade1955
0.925343
SEE4A
([: (- (+/ % #)) [) (([: +/ *) % (([: +/ [) * [: +/ ])&.:*:"_) [: (- (+/ %
#)) ]
You did guess what I would be doing!
Linda
-Original Message-
From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com
[mailto:prog
I fail to see what this discussion about closure has to do with J
programming. The faultmay be entirely mine; I am an old man and an
amateur programming. If this discussion is about J programming, please
inform me of the connection. If not, I suggest that you guys get
together and discuss this
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, William Tanksley, Jr
wrote:
> Reading back through this discussion was difficult but enlightening.
>
> Here's how it started:
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Boyko Bantchev wrote:
>> The 'Lexical Closure' essay
>> (http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Guides/Lexica
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Boyko Bantchev wrote:
> On 20 February 2013 19:51, Raul Miller wrote:
>> But if I take those as definitions for "closure" I am unable to
>> distinguish between "closure" and simple substitution.
>
> There sure is a difference between substitutions and closures.
>
On 20 February 2013 19:51, Raul Miller wrote:
> But if I take those as definitions for "closure" I am unable to
> distinguish between "closure" and simple substitution.
There sure is a difference between substitutions and closures.
Indeed, there is hardly anything in common between them.
But why
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:12 PM, William Tanksley, Jr
wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>> As for the definitions not being mutable, those definitions are
>> irrelevant.
>
> I'm sorry to interrupt, but I don't understand that sentence. I'll
> explain after I let you finish.
I'll try again:
1. A mutab
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Boyko Bantchev wrote:
> On 20 February 2013 17:25, Raul Miller wrote:
>
>> Where?
>
> E.g. in
> http://jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2013-February/031610.html
> and in
> http://jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2013-February/031617.html
Ok.
But if I tak
(i.10) corr i.10 NB. Perfectly correlated
1
(i.10) corr |.i.10NB. Perfectly anti-correlated (inversely
correlated)
_1
(i.10) corr *:i.10NB. Highly correlated
0.962691
(i.10) corr 10?@$100 NB. No significant correlation
0.0442917
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Dan Bro
I wrote:
> Statistical correlation
> (+/@:* % *&(+/)&.:*:)&(- +/%#)
> Rephrase corr in Simplistic J
> ([ - [: (+/ % #) [) (([: +/ *) % [: %: ([: ([: +/ *:) [) * [: ([: +/ *:)
]) ] - [: (+/ % #) ]
I'll also take this opportunity to emphasize the differences between these
two (equivalent) verbs, wh
> P.S. "Common sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world,
> for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it."
> -- René Descartes
"*Common-sense is the most uncommon of all the senses*" -- Manly P. Hall :)
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, F
I wrote:
> corr =: (+/@:* % *&(+/)&.:*:)&(- +/%#)
Linda asked for:
> some sample data for corr with your expected result
I'll just short-circuit this discussion and rephrase corr in Simplistic J
for you.
avg =: +/ % #
sumSqrs =: 13 : '+/ *: y'
simplisticCorr =: 13 : '(x - avg x
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:08 AM, William Tanksley, Jr
wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>> A "closure" is a reference to a subroutine combined with a reference
>> to an environment which provides mutable definitions for the free
>> variables (names whose definitions are supplied outside the body of
>>
What is some sample data for corr with your expected result. Thanks
Linda
-Original Message-
From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com
[mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Dan Bron
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 6:48 PM
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Subje
This problem is not in trace. It is just in jijx.
f=: [: */"1 [: > [: { [: ([: < ^ [: i. >:)"0/ __ q: ]
f 3894
|domain error: f
| f 3894
factorslla
[: */"1 [: > [: { [: ([: < (^ ([: i. >:)))"0/ __ q: ]
factorslla 3894
1 59
11 649
3 177
33 1947
2 118
22 1298
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Boyko Bantchev wrote:
> On 20 February 2013 04:01, Raul Miller wrote:
>> You have not specified what your definition of closure is.
>
> In fact I did, and the definition is not 'mine' – it is the one
> commonly assumed in programming. It is to be noted, though, t
This was from a fresh start in Jjhs:
factorslla =: [: */"1 [: > [: { [: ([: < ( ^ ([: i. >:)))"0/ __ q: ]
factorslla 3894
1 59
11 649
3 177
33 1947
2 118
22 1298
6 354
66 3894
Linda
-Original Message-
From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com
[mailto:programm
On 20 February 2013 04:01, Raul Miller wrote:
> You have not specified what your definition of closure is.
In fact I did, and the definition is not 'mine' – it is the one
commonly assumed in programming. It is to be noted, though, that
I did not even need to do so, again because there is a gener
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Linda Alvord wrote:
> When can you remove the inner parentheses from the right safely?
You can remove a parenthesis when trace will evaluate the part within
the parenthesis the same way regardless of whether or not the
parenthesis are present.
--
Raul
--
Looks like the hook caught you.
factorslla =: [: */"1 [: > [: { [: ([: < ( ^ ([: i. >:)))"0/ __ q: ]
factorsllb =: [: */"1 [: > [: { [: ([: < [ ^ [: i. >: )"0/ __ q: ]
$factorslla 3894
1 1 1 1
$factorsllb 3894
1 1 1 1
(factorslla -: factorsllb) 3894
1
-Dan
-Original Messa
When using the current implementation of trace with names, you should
use fully qualified names (with the locale included).
So, for example, instead of hh you should use [the equivalent] hh_base_
That said, note that trace is not going to examine the definition of
hh, it's just going to combine t
When can you remove the inner parentheses from the right safely? I would
apply the functions from right to left.
f=: [: */"1 [: > [: { [: ([: < ^ [: i. >:)"0/ __ q: ]
f 3894
|domain error: f
| f 3894
factorslla
[: */"1 [: > [: { [: ([: < (^ ([: i. >:)))"0/ __ q: ]
factorslla
[:
I never stopped believing it was possible in simple J! Kip once you chopped
it up with "each" and "every" it came apart.
factrs=: */&>@{@((^ i.@>:)&.>/)@q:~&__factrs 72
1 3 9
2 6 18
4 12 36
8 24 72
ii=:[: < (^ ([: i. >:))
A=:__ q: ]
f=:([:ii"0 / A)
f 72
T-┐
25 matches
Mail list logo
