(Of course, use ((].~) @:) :[: to force monadic valence for full parity with
the original.)
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022, Elijah Stone wrote:
I'll give a more thorough response later, if somebody else doesn't beat me to
it. For the time being:
1. [. and ]. are tacit u and v in the same sense that [
the removing y part -semi tacit
2 : 'u@:v v ]'
I don't think there is a "modifier train" expression that would be full tacit.
On Thursday, April 21, 2022, 01:42:48 a.m. EDT, Michal Wallace
wrote:
I want to write this tacitly:
AA =: {{ (u v y) v y }}
For context, I tend to use
I'll give a more thorough response later, if somebody else doesn't beat me to
it. For the time being:
1. [. and ]. are tacit u and v in the same sense that [ and ] are tacit x and
y. (And ]: is the adverbial counterpart.)
2. Creation of arbitrary forks is difficult with tacit (unless you ch
I want to write this tacitly:
AA =: {{ (u v y) v y }}
For context, I tend to use it to *A*pply monad u *A*t at a location
specified by ambivalent verb v.
AT =: {{ m&{:: : (<@[ m} ]) }}
3 AT ;/i.10
3
_ (3 AT) ;/i.10
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|1|2|_|4|5|6|7|8|9|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
