> On Dec 10, 2019, at 6:59 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
> wrote:
>
> Gilman and Rose's APL: An Interactive Approach
> (If my memory is not betraying me.)
>
One of the nicest complements I ever received (important to me, not to him) was
when Al Rose told me once that I should write a book!
--
> The "(a,a=. ...)" expression reminded me of an upgrade we once did to a
> Sharp APL mainframe system where one of the points of interest was how the
> upgrade handled what they called "pornographic assignment". I don't
> remember the exact example they used but this reminds me of that. I made
a
or convert to Unicode
> code.jsoftware.com
>
>
> ________
> From: Programming on behalf of
> Kirk Iverson
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 8:27 AM
> To: programm...@jsoftware.com
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Explicit vs tacit with assignment
>
enter the bracket characters as
Unicode, or convert to Unicode
code.jsoftware.com
From: Programming on behalf of Kirk
Iverson
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 8:27 AM
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Explicit vs tacit with assignment
(+/@:(0&({::))) 1} ])@:(,&(<;._1 ' . .)@:<)"1
However, the verb itself (gamma) is kosher, as far as I know.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:28 AM Kirk Iverson
wrote:
>
> Anyone following this thread may be interested in a short discussion
> between Igor Zhuravlov, Rau
o: Programming forum
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Explicit vs tacit with assignment
> Message-ID:
> pr93ao8h4qhmojqnkk7wesx...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> > To break the rules deliberately one must first know where to swi
the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately
> and
> > > well."
> > >
> > > Bringhurst, Robert (2005). The Elements of Typographic Style
> > >
> > > PS. I try to keep that in mind when writing (particularly in J).
> > >
> > &g
> >>
> >> AMEN.
> >>
> >> When you try to uphold the rules of a language (which is done only by
> >> older people), you are fighting a lost battle.
> >>
> >>
> >> R.E. Boss
> >>
> >>
> >>> -Oorspronkelijk ber
done only by
>> older people), you are fighting a lost battle.
>>
>>
>> R.E. Boss
>>
>>
>>> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
>>> Van: Programming
>>> Namens Henry Rich
>>> Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2019 04:02
>>
19 04:02
> > Aan: programm...@jsoftware.com
> > Onderwerp: Re: [Jprogramming] Explicit vs tacit with assignment
> >
> > Think nothing of it. I was back in the highschool today, talking linear
> algebra
> > to the very top layer of the high-performing students, hav
.@jsoftware.com
> Onderwerp: Re: [Jprogramming] Explicit vs tacit with assignment
>
> Think nothing of it. I was back in the highschool today, talking linear
> algebra
> to the very top layer of the high-performing students, having them write
> proofs on the board. It is obvious
] Explicit vs tacit with assignment
Just to correct a mistake that I always hate making:
"... for use after _its_ application ..."
Sorry for the noise,
Louis
> On 21 Nov 2019, at 03:49, Louis de Forcrand wrote:
>
> (a,a=.?@#) is a verb, namely (?@# , ?@#). In this expression a is s
Think nothing of it. I was back in the highschool today, talking linear
algebra to the very top layer of the high-performing students, having
them write proofs on the board. It is obvious that the distinction
between "its" and "it's" is not observed in practice, even among these
kids who are t
Just to correct a mistake that I always hate making:
"... for use after _its_ application ..."
Sorry for the noise,
Louis
> On 21 Nov 2019, at 03:49, Louis de Forcrand wrote:
>
> (a,a=.?@#) is a verb, namely (?@# , ?@#). In this expression a is set to the
> _verb_ ?@# and then train (a,a) is
(a,a=.?@#) is a verb, namely (?@# , ?@#). In this expression a is set to the
_verb_ ?@# and then train (a,a) is evaluated.
In the second case a is set to the _result_ of ?@# and then (a,a) is evaluated.
To do this tacitly:
(] , ]) @ (?@#)
or more concisely
,~@?@#
or equivalently (how I would
Re your first question:
(a,a=.?@#)
a , ?@#
a
?@#
You have created a fork. a is equal to a, but it contains ?, and ?y is
not equal to ?y.
Henry Rich
On 11/20/2019 9:29 PM, bill lam wrote:
But it gives trash instead of raising a domain error.
Wed, 20 Nov 2019, Henry Rich написал(а):
It's not trash. It follows the parsing rules.
Henry Rich
On 11/20/2019 9:29 PM, bill lam wrote:
But it gives trash instead of raising a domain error.
Wed, 20 Nov 2019, Henry Rich написал(а):
Tacit verbs are functional. No assignments of results are allowed.
Henry Rich
On 11/20/2019 9:26 P
But it gives trash instead of raising a domain error.
Wed, 20 Nov 2019, Henry Rich написал(а):
> Tacit verbs are functional. No assignments of results are allowed.
>
> Henry Rich
>
> On 11/20/2019 9:26 PM, Nimp O wrote:
> > Hello, simple question.
> >
> > This behaviour surprised me.
> >
> >
Tacit verbs are functional. No assignments of results are allowed.
Henry Rich
On 11/20/2019 9:26 PM, Nimp O wrote:
Hello, simple question.
This behaviour surprised me.
(a,a=.?@#)'01234'
2 4
3 : 'a,a=.?@#y' '01234'
1 1
Why a is not equal to a in the first case? How can I save the ro
Hello, simple question.
This behaviour surprised me.
(a,a=.?@#)'01234'
2 4
3 : 'a,a=.?@#y' '01234'
1 1
Why a is not equal to a in the first case? How can I save the roll as an
intermediate result in the tacit version?
Thanks.
--
20 matches
Mail list logo
