@Adám, hi mate, yesterday I tried some tutorials in tryapl.org, and today my application for using Dyalog is approved. I tried to download RIDE github.com/Dyalog/ride/releases/tag/v4.2.3432. But I can not connect : i.imgur.com/jRJpD0k.png. Could you please take a look, I am using Ubuntu
@A__ You can evaluate a single line of APL by typing it into chat prefixed by ⍞←. Use ⎕← instead for boxed display and multi-line results and use ⋄ instead to silence the first statement. Use ] to call user commands, including ]help ⍣ for help on a glyph etc. Do not use markdown, but fixed-width (4 initial spaces) is fine. Commands: )lb for language bar, )docs for full documentation, )ref for PDF reference card, )idioms for idiom list.
@chaugiang Further from the tutorials on TryAPL, the lessons I gave in this chat room may interest you. Also, check out the bot's profile page, as it has lots of useful links. Oh, and while you may not be able to finish it, try the competition!
@chaugiang Very considerate of you, but it is part of my job. Anyway, you have ⍺ and ⍵ on a and w because they look alike. ⌊ is on f for floor, etc. etc.:
@TorstenGrust g⍨∘f∘⍨f still mentions f twice. What you need is a new operator scheduled for Dyalog 18.0. It is called Over, and will probably get the symbol ⍥. The definition of g⍥f is exactly that. Meanwhile, you can define it as Ö←{(⍵⍵ ⍺)⍺⍺ ⍵⍵ ⍵}
@ngn Thanks. Here, shaving bytes wouldn't be as much of a concern. It is more about clarity and intent. We're not comparing X and Y but their f-values. I was looking for a form that mentions f once.
@ngn Relatedly, a benefit of g⍨∘f⍨∘h over g∘f⍨∘h⍨ is the the left function of f and h (i.e. f) is applied to the left argument while the right function (i.e. h) is applied to the right argument. This is known (to Marshall and me, anyway) as "split-compose".
@TorstenGrust Exactly, you're applying "g over the f-values" or "g over f"
@TorstenGrust This pattern occurs all-over, once you learn to spot it. ⌈⍥≢ and <⍥| and ⍳⍥CaseFold etc. etc.
Oh, and I like ,⍥⊂. This is the same as {⍺ ⍵}.
@ngn Why would X and Y not allow that? The only case I can think of is a DECF and a complex number, in which case I'm wondering what you're doing anyway.
@Adám except the obvious literal translation of the base conversion, i don't expect there to be anything much better than the literal translation of that function