Language has to be an important factor here. If I re-write this in APL --and you know APL-- reading the solution is pretty linear: R ← data BETWEEN limits

Language has to be an important factor here. If I re-write this in APL --and you know APL-- reading the solution is pretty linear: R ← data BETWEEN limits R ← ((data>limits[1])∧(data<limits[2]))/data R ← a COMMON b R ← (∨/a ∘.= b)/a x ← 2 8 7 9 ¯5 0 2 y ← 1 ¯3 10 0 8 9 1 x_btwn ← x BETWEEN 2 10 y_btwn ← y BETWEEN ¯2 9 xy_common ← x_btwn COMMON y_btwn If you know APL the above pretty much reads like the palm of your hand. Since APL is unknown to most, here's a quick explanation. R ← data BETWEEN limits Dyadic function declaration. Takes two arguments. R ← ((data>limits[1])∧(data<limits[2]))/data Let's break this up: (data>limits[1]) Takes the "data" vector and compares it to the first element in "limits", which happens to be the "low" limit. You get a binary vector as the result with a "1" anywhere the comparison is true and "0" otherwise. If "limits" is 2 10: 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Now: (data<limits[2]) Does the same thing with the upper limit: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Then: 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 ∧ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Performs a logical AND of the two binary vectors, resulting in a new vector: 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Finally: R ← 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0/data Selects elements from the "data" vector based on the values in the binary vector and returns the result vector: 8 7 9 Anyhow, that's why I think that language is important. If I wrote this in Forth the pattern would be very different and the thought process required to understand it more convoluted. Probably true as well for assembly.