#@> ;: 'a man a plan a canal'
1 3 1 4 1 5
#@:> ;: 'a man a plan a canal'
6
Henry Rich
On 1/21/2016 9:50 PM, Linda A Alvord wrote:
Jose, I'm looking for amonadic example where @ and @: have different results.
I thought your example might work, but I can't figure out how it works:
Here's a
Jose, I'm looking for amonadic example where @ and @: have different results.
I thought your example might work, but I can't figure out how it works:
Here's a script until an error:
Y=:'mississippi'
f=: 13 :'/:/:y'
g=: 13 :'/:@/:y'
h=: 13 :'/:@:/:y'
(f Y)-:g Y
1
(f Y)-:h Y
1
There could, theoretically, be special code triggered from inside other adverbs
and conjunctions that inspect their arguments. If you can image some
construction with @: or [:, which by itself has no special code but in some
larger context, seen later by the parser, has an optimization.
T
The following confirms and quantifies the effect of triggering special code
(in one instance).
Y=. $'Mississippi'
11 stp noun define
([: /:/:)Y
/: @: /: Y
)
┌──┬──┬──┬──┐
│Sentence │Space │Time │Product │
├──┼──
Thanks for sharing your analysis Marshall. It seems to explain why the
other way around out-performance has not been observed (at least not yet).
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Marshall Lochbaum
wrote:
> Short answer: as far as I can tell, this is never the case.
>
> Special code identificat
Apparently the moral of this little story is that although in theory the
dyadic (and also the monadic) forms u @: v~ and u @: (v~) are
equivalent, in practice (performance-wise) they might not. In some
instances u @: v~ might trigger special code whereas u @: (v~) would
not. It seems that
Again:
([: u v) is equivalent to u@:vNOT u@v .
([: u v y) is a domain error.
Henry Rich
On 1/21/2016 4:54 AM, Linda A Alvord wrote:
I wasn't considering all special code!
([: u v y) and (u@v y) are supposed to be equivalent.
f=: 13 :'u v y'
f
[: u v
g=: 13 :'u@v y'
g
f=: 13 :'u v y'
f
[: u v
5!:4 <'f'
┌─ [:
──┼─ u
└─ v
g=: 13 :'u@v y'
5!:4 <'g'
┌─ u
── @ ─┴─ v
Caution: This is a fake - But since the I think it might be the best of the
two choices.
5!:4 <'f'
┌─ u
──┼─ @
└─ v
Linda
-Original Message-
From: Program
I guess I just figured out my long term strategy for teaching J.
Write explicit verbs as simply as you can.
Read the J translation of "This is how J says it."
Eventually you will speak the best possible J and write it tacitly directly.
Linda
-Original Message-
From: Programming [mailto:p
Maybe this is how the things could work:
F=: 13 :'u v y'
U@V
And you would say "Aha, this is special code." And then you could look up in
NuVoc what that particular special code means.
Linda
-Original Message-
From: Programming [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Be
I wasn't considering all special code!
([: u v y) and (u@v y) are supposed to be equivalent.
f=: 13 :'u v y'
f
[: u v
g=: 13 :'u@v y'
g
u@v
As Mike suggested "Is there a danger, if g always uses special code, in using
that same code for f?"
Linda
-Original Message-
F
11 matches
Mail list logo
