[Jprogramming] tactic programming

[R.A. MacDonald]

Hello Roger;

True observations, as I would expect.

To be precise, the only difference in length is the parentheses.

Some experimentation showed me that:

     f@[ g  [: h]

is equivalent as well.

Still, I would have been as happy with fewer tokens.

Defining:

   lft =: @[
   rgt =: @]

allowing

   f lft g h rgt

is a useful quick&dirty gloss.

Roger Hui wrote:
> f@[ g h@]   is equivalent to   ([: f [)g([: h])
> but is shorter and requires no parens.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "R.A. MacDonald" <ramacd at nbnet.nb.ca>
> Date: Thursday, June 7, 2007 6:49 am
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] tactic programming
>
>   
>> Hello Mike;
>>
>> I suspect that Raul was misled by the use of '+/ open % close' as 
>> a 
>> solution.
>>
>> The solution Raul proposed does tug at my (Browningian?) yearning 
>> at a 
>> phrasal form that does:
>>
>>   (f x) g (h y)
>>
>> and is not as cluttered as
>>
>>  ([: f [)g([: h])
>>     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
>   

-- 

later ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|\/| Randy A MacDonald   | APL: If you can say it, it's done.. (ram)
|/\| ramacd at nbnet.nb.ca  |
|\ |                     | The only real problem with APL is that
BSc(Math) UNBF'83        | it is "still ahead of its time."
Sapere Aude              |     - Morten Kromberg
                         | Looking for a whip-smart APL developer? Send me a note.
Natual born APL'er       |     mailto:ramacd at nbnet.nb.ca
-----------------------------------------------------(INTP)----{ gnat }-