On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 07:55:50PM +0100, Dr. Jürgen Sauermann wrote:
SVN 1231.
Looks good, thanks.
-k
Hi,
interesting talk, definitely worthwhile watching. I could not
understand it completely since
I am not a very good APL programmer, but it was interesting to see
that I am not the only
one that did monadic ∪ wrong.
I have done a major r
For ideas on how to make Unique behave sanely in the presence of
tolerant comparison, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPWky9IOG40
Jay.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 20:13, Dr. Jürgen Sauermann
wrote:
>
> Hi Kacper,
>
> I am aware of the non-transitivity of = when ⎕CT ≠ 0. However, the
> algorithm
Hi Kacper,
I am aware of the non-transitivity of = when ⎕CT ≠ 0. However, the
algorithm used in GNU APL is essentially the same as in the ISO
standard. The result is sometimes puzzling.
The difference between GNU APL and ISO is that the ISO
algorithm has, in the worst case, quadratic runtime, whi
Actually, while the algorithm used for 20≥⍴ works well with
characters or integers (once you fix the direction of
inequality), I don't think it's actually correct at all for
non-zero ⎕CT because tolerant equality is not transitive.
Consider this:
X←1+0 1 2 5 4 3×(⎕CT←1E¯9)÷2
∪19
Hello,
Unique with argument of 20 or more items gives results
in an incorrect order:
∪'abbbaaa'
ab
∪'abbb'
ba
Or even with wrong set of distinct elements:
(A B C)←1+¯1 0 1×(⎕CT←1E¯9)÷2
∪19↑B A B C
1 0
∪20↑B A B C
0.95 1.000
