Hi Julia users,
Maybe you want to support me with my wish list.
Here it is:
- end statement: remove it (ala python) and use indentation, the code will
be shorter and cleaner
- case/switch: include it (missing in python)
- array indexing: introduce with negative number -1,-2,... (instead of or
Hi Friedrich,
I'm glad you like Julia. I'll respond briefly to your suggestions; for some
of them, I think they've been suggested before on this mailing list with
more detailed answers than I've written here.
Minor syntax changes between languages can be annoying, but if you use
Julia more, you w
Hi Friedrich,
Sounds like you like Python!
In addition to what Leah said, there is an open issue about adding divmod
(and a few related functions). See:
https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/4437
It's usually a good practice to do a few quick searches in the google
group/mailing list in addi
Hi Leah,
I fully understand that syntax changes are difficult. Nevertheless, I want
to encourage to do those, which I think are in the spirit of the Julia
philosophy (http://julialang.org/blog/2012/02/why-we-created-julia/):
- "we want the language to be simple and clean"
Still Julia is a quite
Sorry, the dot makes it not clear, but even more confusing. Actually, ".*"
reads like dot (.) product (*).
E.g. in Python/Numpy and IDL +,-,*,/ are used for element-wise operation.
Moreover,
julia> [1 2 3] + [1 2 3]
1x3 Array{Int64,2}:
2 4 6
julia> [1 2 3] * [1 2 3]
DimensionMismatch("*")
The
Friedrich,
Julia does not only use ideas from Python but also from other languages,
like Matlab, Lisp, ... (and of course it has it own state of the art,
unique and amazing techniques).
Since julia aims at technical problems, with lots of linear algebra, it
makes some sense to use * for matrix
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014, at 15:45, [1]klimah...@googlemail.com wrote:
Sorry, the dot makes it not clear, but even more confusing. Actually,
".*" reads like dot (.) product (*).
E.g. in Python/Numpy and IDL +,-,*,/ are used for element-wise
operation.
Moreover,
julia> [1 2 3] + [1 2 3]
1x3 Array
Whole-array inequalities between matrices can have context-dependent
meanings. For example, you can define a very useful ordering among the set
of positive semidefinite symmetric matrices - this is used in constrained
optimization (semidefinite programming) since the space of positive
semidefin
I agree that there are just too many different popular definitions of <
between vectors/matrices/arrays to just pick one arbitrarily.
Also, another reason not to define A < B as elementwise: <, when it is
implemented, is expected to correspond to at least a partial order. In
particular, it is e
Hi again,
Am Sonntag, 6. April 2014 01:33:16 UTC+2 schrieb Cristóvão Duarte Sousa:
Since julia aims at technical problems, with lots of linear algebra, it
> makes some sense to use * for matrix multiplication (everyday linear
> algebra) and use something else (.* borrowed from Matlab) to the le
On Sunday, 13 April 2014 19:18:31 UTC-3, klim...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> (Also note that division does not look like the inverse operation of
> multiplication, since e.g. A=[1 2 3]; B=[1, 2, 4]; A*B/B == A returns
> false.)
>
what would you expect to happen here? you're taking a scalar pro
Sure. This was just a side note. I would expect that a "notation" A*B/B ==
A to be always true (except for division by zero of course), since division
the inverse process of multiplication, like for scalar values (a*b/b == a
or A.*B./B .== A).
Am Montag, 14. April 2014 00:38:57 UTC+2 schrieb
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 6:18 PM, wrote:
> Am Freitag, 4. April 2014 00:45:37 UTC+2 schrieb klim...@googlemail.com:Hi
>> Julia users,
>>
>> - array indexing: introduce with negative number -1,-2,... (instead of or
>> additionally to end, end-1)
>>
> No comments on that?
>
> Negative indexing is a
Multiplication is not generally invertible. This is true of real numbers at
zero and true of floating-point numbers at many non-zero values. For
vectors and matrices, multiplication is highly non-invertible. Given this
feature of reality, I'm not sure what else we can do.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at
This conversation is reminding me of a post from John D Cook a couple years
ago (www.johndcook.com/blog/2012/04/02/why-scipy/) where he said he would
"rather do math in a general-purpose language than try to do
general-purpose programming in a math language." He has a point, for
example interfa
15 matches
Mail list logo
