ay, November 3, 2015 at 7:41:17 AM UTC+1, Christoph Ortner wrote:
>>>
>>> Why not do this via Compat.jl ?
>>>> C
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 3 November 2015 04:28:44 UTC, David Anthoff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Compat generall po
at in julia 0.5 if you just use
>>>> `[]` for slicing without anything else, you generate a warning, and then
>>>> you have to opt-in to the NEW syntax.
>>>>
>>>> > -Original Message-
>>>> > From: julia...@googlegroups.com
> > -Original Message-
>>> > From: julia...@googlegroups.com [mailto:julia-
>>> > us...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Forgy
>>> > Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 3:30 PM
>>> > To: julia-users
>>> > Subject: RE: [julia-
gt;> you have to opt-in to the NEW syntax.
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: julia...@googlegroups.com [mailto:julia-
>> > us...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Forgy
>> > Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 3:30 PM
>> > To: julia-user
15 3:30 PM
> > To: julia-users >
> > Subject: RE: [julia-users] Re: Re: are array slices views in 0.4?
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > I'm not an expert, i.e. I've never used it, but your idea "using
> OldArrays"
> > sounds exactly
-
> From: julia-users@googlegroups.com [mailto:julia-
> us...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Forgy
> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 3:30 PM
> To: julia-users
> Subject: RE: [julia-users] Re: Re: are array slices views in 0.4?
>
> Hi David,
>
> I'm not an expert
Hi David,
I'm not an expert, i.e. I've never used it, but your idea "using OldArrays"
sounds exactly like the purpose of Compat.jl, which I believe is the
compatibility module referred to.
Have a look and good luck:
https://github.com/JuliaLang/Compat.jl
I’m not sure what you refer to by “Compatability module”.
From: julia-users@googlegroups.com [mailto:julia-users@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Christoph Ortner
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 1:09 PM
To: julia-users
Subject: Re: [julia-users] Re: Re: are array slices views in 0.4?
How is
.
>
>
>
> *From:* julia...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> julia...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Cedric St-Jean
> *Sent:* Monday, November 2, 2015 12:00 PM
> *To:* julia-users >
> *Subject:* Re: [julia-users] Re: Re: are array slices views in 0.4?
>
>
>
>
tefan Karpinski
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 7:43 AM
To: Julia Users >
Subject: Re: [julia-users] Re: Re: are array slices views in 0.4?
Yes, I'm concerned about this as well. I'm sure we'll come up with something.
Maybe allow using the old behavior during a transitiona
> *From:* julia...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> julia...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Stefan Karpinski
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2015 7:43 AM
> *To:* Julia Users >
> *Subject:* Re: [julia-users] Re: Re: are array slices views in 0.4?
>
>
>
> Yes, I'm concerned about th
: julia-users@googlegroups.com [mailto:julia-users@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Stefan Karpinski
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 7:43 AM
To: Julia Users
Subject: Re: [julia-users] Re: Re: are array slices views in 0.4?
Yes, I'm concerned about this as well. I'm sure we'll come up
vior of slicing with [] will
> change drastically, with essentially no indicator where in my code I might
> run into trouble, right?
>
>
>
> *From:* julia-users@googlegroups.com [mailto:julia-users@googlegroups.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Stefan Karpinski
> *Sent:* Monday, Octo
@googlegroups.com [mailto:julia-users@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Stefan Karpinski
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 12:05 PM
To: Julia Users
Subject: Re: [julia-users] Re: Re: are array slices views in 0.4?
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Christoph Ortner mailto:christophortn...@gmail.com> >
Hi Stefan,
Many thanks for the clarifications.
Just for the record: I've often complained about the changes to Julia
since 0.2, but this is one that I am more on the fence about.
Christoph
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Christoph Ortner <
christophortn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fabian - Many thanks for your comments. This was very helpful.
>
> (c) if I want to write code now that shouldn't break with 0.5, what should
>> I do?
>>
>
> I think when you need a copy, just surround your ge
On Monday, 26 October 2015 11:17:58 UTC-7, Christoph Ortner wrote:
>
> Fabian - Many thanks for your comments. This was very helpful.
>
> (c) if I want to write code now that shouldn't break with 0.5, what should
>> I do?
>>
>
> I think when you need a copy, just surround your getindex with a co
Fabian - Many thanks for your comments. This was very helpful.
(c) if I want to write code now that shouldn't break with 0.5, what should
> I do?
>
I think when you need a copy, just surround your getindex with a copy
function. (e.g. copy(x[:,10]) instead of x[:,10]).
But this would lead me t
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 9:08:55 PM UTC+2, Christoph Ortner wrote:
>
>
> Apparently yes. For me it is very counterintuitive that this would be the
> default behaviour. But presumably there was a lot of discussion that this
> is desirable.
>
> (a) What are reasons, other than performance?
Apparently yes. For me it is very counterintuitive that this would be the
default behaviour. But presumably there was a lot of discussion that this
is desirable.
(a) What are reasons, other than performance?
(b) Is this still under discussion or pretty much settled?
(c) if I want to write cod
Yes, that's the whole premise of a view.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Christoph Ortner <
christophortn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If I write into a view, does it change the original array?
>
> Christoph
>
If I write into a view, does it change the original array?
Christoph
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:24:59 PM UTC-4, Tom Breloff wrote:
>
> On this note, is there a good summary somewhere of the pros/cons between
> using `sub` vs `slice` vs `ArrayViews.view`?
>
As I understand it, slice tries to squeeze the dimensions (producing
lower-dimensional arrays if po
On this note, is there a good summary somewhere of the pros/cons between
using `sub` vs `slice` vs `ArrayViews.view`?
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Steven G. Johnson
wrote:
> On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:49:21 AM UTC-4, Neal Becker wrote:
>>
>> To be more precise, I'm coming from python
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:49:21 AM UTC-4, Neal Becker wrote:
>
> To be more precise, I'm coming from python/numpy. There, a native slice:
> M[1:,2:] for example
> returns a view, not a copy. As does a strided view:
> M[::2]
> I like this design. Does julia do this now, or does it pla
My point is it's just notation. `M[:,2]` is notation for `getindex(M, :, 2)`,
which returns a copy. `slice(M, :, 2)` returns a view. In julia 0.5, `M[:,2]`
will effectively become notation for `slice(M, :, 2)`.
So we're talking about a difference of 6 characters. I know syntax is
important, and
Tim Holy wrote:
> This will be a ridiculous charicature, but this issue has come up so many
> times that I think a little charicaturization is timely.
>
> With regards to arrays and views, the "big change" in julia 0.5 will
> essentially be a 1-line change:
>
> getindex(A, indexes...) = sli
27 matches
Mail list logo
