[Jprogramming] Different results?

[Roger Hui]

I guess <.@:%: could work the same as <.@%: , but not 
for the reason you stated.

f at g"_ and f@:(g"_) need not be the same even if 
f and g are rank 0.  For example:

   f=: 2"0
   g=: i."0

   f at g"_ ] 2 7 1
2 2 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
   f@:(g"_) ] 2 7 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
   f@(g"_) ] 2 7 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Miller, Raul D" <rdmiller at usatoday.com>
To: "Programming forum" <programming at jsoftware.com>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 7:11 AM
Subject: RE: [Jprogramming] Different results?

Roger Hui wrote:
> They should but they don't.  The reason is that the interpreter
> didn't bother to make a special case for <.@:%:, since that
> would only produce an extended precision result for a singleton
> argument.

I must confess that I don't follow this explanation

Since both <. and %: are rank 0, it seems to me that
<: @ %:_" and <: @: (%:"_) are logically the same
operation.

I can understand that it wasn't implemented that way,
but I don't see why a special implementation would further
need to special case a singleton argument.