On 2014-03-06 10:53:12, Elias Mårtenson wrote:
> ∇λ←avg ⍵
> λ←(+/⍵)÷⍴⍵
>
> This will of course fail when the user tries to save the function.
I'm not using Emacs nor your mode, but why should it fail?
This works:
⎕FX 'λ←avg ⍵' 'λ←(+/⍵)÷⍴⍵'
avg
And so does this:
∇avg
[1]
The Emacs mode allows the user to edit an existing function by pressing C-c
C-f, or typing ∇ followed by the name of the function. This opens up the
function editor in a separate window.
However, when the user creates a function using the dfn notation:
avg ← {(+/⍵)÷⍴⍵}
And then tried to edit it
On 6 March 2014 08:01, Tobia Conforto wrote:
> On 5 March 2014 19:12, Daniel H. Leidisch wrote:
>
> > Jokes aside, while I'm all in favor of such extensions for tacit
> > programming (composition, currying, hooks/forks/trains, as in NARS2000,
> > NGN, newer versions of Dyalog, J), I think proper
Hi Juergen
> how does NARS2000 define f⍤B and A f⍤B (the standard does not)?
I can answer this.
f⍤y is just the function that would be applied to B in f⍤y B, so that one can
give it a name: g←f⍤y and then apply it: g B
A f⍤B is a syntax error, because f⍤B becomes a function, which then lacks th
On 5 March 2014 19:12, Daniel H. Leidisch wrote:
> Jokes aside, while I'm all in favor of such extensions for tacit
> programming (composition, currying, hooks/forks/trains, as in NARS2000,
> NGN, newer versions of Dyalog, J), I think proper lambdas are a much
> more important and fundamental iss
Hi Daniel,
how does NARS2000 define f⍤B and A f⍤B (the standard does not)?
/// Jürgen
On 03/04/2014 07:52 PM, Daniel H. Leidisch wrote:
Hello!
Juergen Sauermann
writes:
What you probably intended to do is:
* {'foo',⍵}⍤1 (4 5⍴⍳10)*
foo 1 2 3 4 5
foo 6 7 8 9 10
foo 1 2 3 4 5
foo 6 7
On 5 March 2014 19:12, Daniel H. Leidisch wrote:
I don't think that the support for tacit programming in modern APL
> implementations counts as "pure SO APL". :) Then again, I'm not sure
> what "SO" means, assuming the "S" stands for standard.
>
Oh, you don't know what SO means? It's the interna
Hello!
Jay Foad writes:
> I don't know how to do it in GNU APL. In Dyalog you can play silly
> games with ∘ (function composition) and ⍨, e.g.:
I don't think that the support for tacit programming in modern APL
implementations counts as "pure SO APL". :) Then again, I'm not sure
what "SO" means
[cxdfooaski_36]¥°¥ë¡¼¥×¤Î·Ç¼¨ÈĤËÅê¹Æ¤¬¤¢¤Ã¤¿¤³¤È¤ò¡¢Yahoo!¥°¥ë¡¼¥×¤è¤ê¤ªÃΤ餻¤¤¤¿¤·¤Þ¤¹¡£
---
Hi!
http://neix.currencymatters.co.uk/_leader.of.sales.in.2014?dosopiro
---
Sent: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:07:21
¥Ø¥ë¥×¥Ú¡¼¥¸¡§ http://help.yahoo.co.jp/help/jp/groups/
¥°¥ë¡¼¥×¥Ú¡¼¥¸¡§ htt
> Out of curiosity, do you have a good solution without the use of a lambda?
> "pure SO APL" if you like.
I don't know how to do it in GNU APL. In Dyalog you can play silly
games with ∘ (function composition) and ⍨, e.g.:
⎕ML←1 ⍝ ↑ is mix and ↓ is split
↑(⌷⍨∘(⊂∘⍋))⍨¨↓X ⍝ N.B. ⍵[⍋⍵] ←→
On 5 March 2014 18:18, Jay Foad wrote:
>
> {⍵[⍋⍵]}⍤1 X
>
Nice. I feel stupid for not thinking of that.
To me, it's clear that without the lambda functions, a lot of APL becomes
unnecessarily cumbersome.
Out of curiosity, do you have a good solution without the use of a lambda?
"pure SO A
On 5 March 2014 05:25, Elias Mårtenson wrote:
> Referencing yesterday's discussion about ⍤, I realised that I can use it to
> get the indexes like this:
>
> X
> ┌→─┐
> ↓xz│
> │zx│
> │ab│
> │ba│
> └──┘
> ⍋⍤1 X
> ┌→──┐
> ↓1 2│
> │2 1│
> │1 2│
> │2 1│
> └───┘
>
>
> However, I can't figure
12 matches
Mail list logo
