@ngn I've not had much cause to use them but dzaima said "eval each char of the string representation of the number" so I'm assuming ⍎ is eval and ⍕ is stringify :P
@dzaima So ⌸ changes M in-place? I didn't realise you had "⎕NS". Btw, I've settled on using monadic ⎕NS to create namespaces, as I need the left argument to (optionally) make them named.
@Sherlock9 it parses like this: 1((+⍣{...})⍣⎕)⊢0. 1 is the left arg to the second ⍣, so it gets passed at each iteration to its operand +⍣{...}, which in turn passes it at each of its own iterations to +
@ngn ⊥ is evaluate in base ⍺, and ⍎ is evaluate in namespace ⍺ (default is ⎕THIS). ⊤ is represent in base ⍺, and ⍕ is represent with format ⍺ (default is as-printed).
My old "Hello, World!" challenge when learning a new language is the Josephus problem with three inputs, where you have n people in a circle, you cumulatively kick out the k-th remaining person, and get the q-th person to get kicked out of the circle.
I sort of have a solution in the following "rotate the circle manually" solution:
@ngn In my proposal (which is basically on track for 18.0) you can create an inline anonymous namespace with (name:value ⋄ name2:value2). You can "dot" into this namespace and thus use that as an inline context: (sum:+/ ⋄ num←≢).(sum÷num)
@Ven It is how Blink renders characters missing from the font. Gecko first looks if another font has the char, and only if not, it will resort to decomposition into a base char and a combining overlay. Blink will decompose as soon as a char is missing, and only if even the decomposed parts are missing will it fall back to a different font. Firefox ends up more readable, and Chrome ends up with a more consistent look.
hmm is it worth adding the "dotting" into namespaces? it'd take heavy reworking for a map to be usable as a scope (only the reverse is somewhat emulatable sadly)
@ASCII-only So whether a function is called on the argument(s) or on the results of one or two functions applied to the argument(s) depends on the parity of its position counting from the right.
@ASCII-only Yes, and yes. This isn't the only way that trains could work (indeed, they work differently in J and K), but it does come out very neat most of the time.