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 
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to