Pepe, this does help. Thanks. Kip
Sent from my iPad
On May 16, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> Hi kip,
>
> 0. See the links corresponding to this point in the spoilers of my original
> message (which are near the end of this message, after the countdown
> 29,28,27, ... 0).
Hi kip,
0. See the links corresponding to this point in the spoilers of my original
message (which are near the end of this message, after the countdown
29,28,27, ... 0). The answer why @ can be used instead of @: is in the
second link and it is ultimately the same reason why @[ and @:[ (and @] a
Jose from Kip
0. Roger's Wiki essay Trains is my source for his proof of expressive
completeness.
http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Trains
I suppose in the Capped Fork essay Roger has in mind an adaptation of the
Trains proof in which
f@(q T)
is replaced by
[: f (q T)
Perhaps y
I am still somewhat confused, where is the fork then? You are not
referring ( [ [ [ [ [ [ [)`'' as a fork. Are you? You are not considering
forks that are not invoked (such as the one in the sentence '[ [ ['). Are
you? Maybe you are, but in that case the [: vs @: argument would be mute
or, alte
All [
None of the [ verbs receive any arguments.
The only verb which does anything, in that sentence, is L.
FYI,
--
Raul
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> Which one ( L.([ [ [ [ [ [ [)`'' ) ?
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
>
>> [
>>
>> -
Which one ( L.([ [ [ [ [ [ [)`'' ) ?
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
> [
>
> --
> Raul
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
> wrote:
> > I am afraid these examples might be too deep for me. For instance,
> > presumably in your last example there is a lea
Yes, there have been some performance issues with caps in forks vs ats over
the years; see for example,
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2003-April/014507.html
That particular problem has been resolved but some issues remain.
Performance issues was another reason why I favored @: over [:
"On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM, km wrote:
> Roger provides a motivation for capped fork in his Wiki essay Capped Fork:
>
>
> http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Capped%20Fork?highlight=%28completeness%29
>
> He says, "When [: g h is interpreted as g@:h , it means that "everything"
> can be ex
[
--
Raul
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> I am afraid these examples might be too deep for me. For instance,
> presumably in your last example there is a leading verb in a fork which is
> not invoked. If so, which one is that verb?
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:5
I am afraid these examples might be too deep for me. For instance,
presumably in your last example there is a leading verb in a fork which is
not invoked. If so, which one is that verb?
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
>
Thanks for that explanation Roger.
Is there any reason why fork with cap cannot be implemented exactly as @:
internally? It looks like there are just a few cases in jtatco that are not
in jtfolk, but in the long run, so as not to have to maintain both
sections, could they share code?
On Thu, May
it would be interested to know if @: performs better than [: in general.
On May 16, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Roger Hui wrote:
> I don't know why ([:-.-:)"0/ ?2 10$10 is slower than (-.@:-:)"0/ ?2
> 10$10. To find the answer I'd have to look at the code. I am not
> surprised that they run a
Relevant discussions and solutions:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1557522/how-to-refactor-this-in-j
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15141135/finding-integers-divisible-by-x-an-y-in-j
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:08 AM, David Ward Lambert
wrote:
> http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Sum_multiples_
I don't know why ([:-.-:)"0/ ?2 10$10 is slower than (-.@:-:)"0/ ?2
10$10. To find the answer I'd have to look at the code. I am not
surprised that they run at different speeds because [:-.-: and -.@:-: are
implemented by different code.
+/@:, requires less space than [:+/, because the f
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM, km wrote:
> Roger provides a motivation for capped fork in his Wiki essay Capped Fork:
>
>
> http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Capped%20Fork?highlight=%28completeness%29
>
> He says, "When [: g h is interpreted as g@:h , it means that
> "everything" can be ex
15 matches
Mail list logo
