Pascal wrote:
> 0 0 1 1 1 (2 <\ ])\. i.5
Then:
> sorry, key is /. not \.
Yep! But to address this:
> Something else happens. (called 5 times, in pattern that is hard to
> understand).
The tally of 0 0 1 1 1 (i.e. # 0 0 1 1 1) is 5, and the dyad f\. has a left
rank of 0, so (2 <\ ]) is invoke
sorry, key is /. not \.
- Original Message -
From: 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
To: Programming Forum
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 10:46 AM
Subject: [Jprogramming] key misunderstanding?
0 0 1 1 1 (2 <\ ])\. i.5
for the inner function (2 <\ ]) I'd expect th
0 0 1 1 1 (2 <\ ])\. i.5
for the inner function (2 <\ ]) I'd expect that it would be called twice with 0
1 and 2 3 4 argumnents.
Something else happens. (called 5 times, in pattern that is hard to understand).
--
For information
In my experience I find that it is useful that the nub, self classify and
key cell orderings are the same.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Joey K Tuttle wrote:
> I share this opinion (and the later caveats for use in APL... :)
>
>
> On 2013/04/24 13:35 , Dan Bron wrote:
>
>> Occurrence in x.
I share this opinion (and the later caveats for use in APL... :)
On 2013/04/24 13:35 , Dan Bron wrote:
Occurrence in x. It's not even a question. Anything else is heresy.
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsof
Or, hmm, maybe since it's APL, you don't call f at all, you just replace
missing keys in the output with ⍬ (zilde)?
-Dan
-Original Message-
From: Dan Bron [mailto:j...@bron.us]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:35 PM
To: 'programm...@jsoftware.com'
Subject: RE
s.jsoftware.com
[mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Roger Hui
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 3:05 PM
To: Programming forum
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] key
Thank you to everyone who responded. A further question: do you prefer
that the cells be ordered by their occurrence in x, or do
I don't think it will matter much if you make the dyadic change, but I
don't see any reason (except efficiency) to sort. I can't think of a
case where it would matter one way or the other.
Henry Rich
On 4/24/2013 3:05 PM, Roger Hui wrote:
Thank you to everyone who responded. A further quest
For me, the answer to that is application dependent. But I haven't had
any problem with the current behavior.
That said, thinking about this - it's easy to sort by x. It's harder
to recover from a sort (not a lot harder, but still noticeable).
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 3:05 PM, R
Thank you to everyone who responded. A further question: do you prefer
that the cells be ordered by their occurrence in x, or do you prefer that
they be sorted (by x)?
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Roger Hui wrote:
> I have a question concerning your use of *key*. Do you find yourself
> wi
This thread caused me to look at the following message from 2009
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-November/016859.html
From: Raul Miller
Date: Sat Nov 14 03:33:39 HKT 2009
Subject: rank by key
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Tirrell, Jordan (Consultant)
> key=: 1 1,1 0,1 1,1 0
It'd be a good exercise for somebody. The main work would be in the code
to "recognize" special cases of f@]/.. rather than f/. The code is in file
ao.c .
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Jose Mario Quintana <
jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "
> This does not mean that the J definition
3 2:43
> Aan: Programming forum
> Onderwerp: [Jprogramming] key
>
> I have a question concerning your use of *key*. Do you find yourself
> wishing that in x f/.y, the f would be invoked with a left argument which
> is key value corresponding to the items in the right argument? T
In x f/.y have I ever used verb f that includes {. ?
Yes.
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
"
This does not mean that the J definition or implementation will be changed
"
Why not? I would not like to be left behind :) Compatibility? It could
be added as (/..).
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Roger Hui wrote:
> I have a question concerning your use of *key*. Do you find yourself
More likely
(, #)/..~
The downside of dyadic u in key is that it would break existing code.
Including, of course: ({. , #)/.~
FYI,
--
Raul
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Ric Sherlock wrote:
> I agree it would be nice. If I understand correctly, the proposed
> definition would allow the f
I agree it would be nice. If I understand correctly, the proposed
definition would allow the following replacement:
( ({. , #)/.~ ) becomes ( (, #)/.~ )
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
> I have often wished for that.
>
> --
> Raul
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Ro
I have often wished for that.
--
Raul
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Roger Hui wrote:
> I have a question concerning your use of *key*. Do you find yourself
> wishing that in x f/.y, the f would be invoked with a left argument which
> is key value corresponding to the items in the right argu
Yes, very much. I am continually writing
x (~.@[ ... f/.) y
And what does it cost? f@]/. would get the current behavior.
Henry Rich
On 4/15/2013 8:43 PM, Roger Hui wrote:
I have a question concerning your use of *key*. Do you find yourself
wishing that in x f/.y, the f would be invoked wit
Yes.
Please excuse typos; composed on a handheld device.
On Apr 15, 2013, at 6:43 PM, Roger Hui wrote:
> I have a question concerning your use of *key*. Do you find yourself
> wishing that in x f/.y, the f would be invoked with a left argument which
> is key value corresponding to the items
I have a question concerning your use of *key*. Do you find yourself
wishing that in x f/.y, the f would be invoked with a left argument which
is key value corresponding to the items in the right argument? This does
not mean that the J definition or implementation will be changed, but to
find out
21 matches
Mail list logo
