I see your point, and actually think it's a very good idea. I am more
unhappy with the difference between A[:,3] and A[3,:], but I have seen
there are reasons for this too, even if I am not very convinced (but no
expert to judge either). Is there agreement also on this? There're a ton of
github discussions, but cannot understand what is the prevailing view, in
particular for 0.4
Il giorno martedì 26 maggio 2015 18:55:19 UTC+2, Tim Holy ha scritto:
>
> The types of the arguments determine the return type. In that sense, A[:,
> 3]
> and A[:, 3:3] are completely different constructs, and the second is much
> more
> like A[:, 3:4] than it is like A[:, 3]. This is no different from the rest
> of
> julia---types matter.
>
> The flip side is Matlab's behavior, where an algorithm that happens to
> return
> 3:3 instead of 3:4 can suddenly change the behavior of some later
> operation
> like squeeze, and then reorder your dimensions on you. This is something
> that
> julia developers are trying to avoid.
>
> Best,
> --Tim
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 08:58:47 AM Andrea Cimatoribus wrote:
> > I have seen a lot of discussions on this issue, in particular in
> relation
> > to the coming 0.4 release. Since I must admit I got completely lost in
> the
> > debate: is there an agreement on this? Since it is such a fundamental
> > element, which can break more or less any piece of code (and is also
> very
> > much connected to the switch to array views, as far as I understood), is
> it
> > possibly wiser to wait for 0.4 for a first test drive of Julia?
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Il giorno giovedì 19 giugno 2014 11:18:10 UTC+2, Carlos Baptista ha
> scritto:
> > > If I do this:
> > >
> > > A = rand(10, 10)
> > > x = A[:, 3]
> > >
> > > then typeof(x) is Array{Float64, 1}. However if I do this:
> > >
> > > A = rand(10, 10)
> > > x = A[:, 3:3]
> > >
> > > then typeof(x) is Array{Float64, 2}.
> > >
> > > Is this a bug, or is this behaviour the intention of the developers?
> In
> > > case of the latter: why?
>
>
