Anonymous user
Talk:Forward difference: Difference between revisions
Older version of J solution should be retained, along with the new solution.
No edit summary |
(Older version of J solution should be retained, along with the new solution.) |
||
Line 4:
:::Yes, that's the way to handle receiving an empty list. (A similar "corner case" has been discussed [[Talk:Maximum_subarray|here]].) <br>One of the things I appreciate about [[J]] is how many of these exception-situations have been resolved within the language itself. In this instance both the single-element and empty-list possibilities require no specific code. --[[User:TBH|TBH]] 09:45, 11 January 2008 (MST)
It is very nice to see the [[Python]] entry. Studying it has improved my grasp of that language. --[[User:TBH|TBH]] 09:45, 11 January 2008 (MST)
With regard to the replacement of ((}. - }:) ^:) by (2&(-/\)):
I agree that a solution in the form of a verb is somewhat better than a solution that is an adverb, although the benefits strike me as subtle and minor.
I think the original solution is worth retaining as an example because of its form. It is not only a different algorithm, it is another strong example of how tacit form allows one to "code the concept." These two solutions complement one another, so both should be included.
Contrary to the comment upon replacement, the new program is not shorter than the first solution. This is demonstrated by the following J interaction:
#;:'(}. - }:) ^:'
6
#;:'2&(-/\)'
7
--[[User:TBH|TBH]] 21:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
| |||