That does not do the same thing as squeeze on a 3+-dimensional array.
On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 1:40:53 PM UTC-5, John Myles White wrote: > > Use vec > > On Sep 3, 2014, at 11:35 AM, David Smith <david...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > Ok, so you can continue using the old squeeze. Us reckless types can use > the aggressive one. ;-) > > I don't see why it shouldn't be available. Is there a fear that new users > will run into subtle errors and hate Julia because of it? > > What I hate is typing squeeze(x, 1) all the time. > > > > On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 1:21:56 PM UTC-5, Tim Holy wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, September 03, 2014 10:57:16 AM David Smith wrote: >> > Also, why don't we have a squeeze(A::AbstractArray{T,N}) method that >> > eliminates all singleton dimensions? If we had that, indexing >> returning >> > singleton dimensions wouldn't be as bad. Currently, having to write >> > squeeze(a[k,:,:],1) is terrible. That is something where Matlab wins. >> >> It wins, until the day that the a that gets returned by some other >> algorithm >> happens, on one iteration out of 10^4, to have size (K, M, N) with M =1. >> At >> that point, Matlab's squeeze delivers you an Nx1 array rather than the >> 1xN >> array you wished you had. >> >> I can't tell you how many times I got bit by that, until I stopped using >> squeeze altogether and just used reshape(). Which is more tedious yet >> than >> Julia's squeeze(). >> >> --Tim >> >> >