Hello!
First, thank you for the nice explanation in my absence. I couldn't have
done it better. Let me just explain where I see things a little
differently.
Tobia Conforto
writes:
> Even the classic example of a fork (+/÷≡) is harder to read than its
> functional version {(+/⍵)÷≡⍵} and it goes
>> Even the classic example of a fork (+/÷≡) is harder to read than its
>> functional version {(+/⍵)÷≡⍵} and it goes downhill from there with longer
>> trains. But maybe it's just me being unfamiliar with the syntax.
>
>
> Did you intend to use ⍴ instead of ≡ there? I can't see how {(+/⍵)÷≡⍵} could
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
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
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
> 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
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 out a good way to apply it to the original array.
Really, what is th ebest solu
10 matches
Mail list logo
