if you've not seen it, the general guidelines for these different functions
are here - http://julia.readthedocs.org/en/latest/stdlib/base/#text-i-o
there's print and show, and by default one calls the other. iirc the repl
uses show (but don't quote me on that).
things are complicated by the all/compact distinction.
andrew
On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 21:35:42 UTC-4, Iain Dunning wrote:
>
> Additionally, its seems like print for a matrix is designed to let you
> recover the raw matrix somehow, and dump is for humans.
> But for strings, dump's output lets you recover it (escaped newlines), and
> print is for humans?
>
> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:52:37 PM UTC-4, Iain Dunning wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm trying to write some pretty-print code for one of my packages. In
>> particular, I want to print tensors, e.g. rand(3,3,3)
>> Now the (exported) options seem to be "print" and "dump"
>>
>> For 2D:
>> julia> print(rand(3,3))
>> [0.9848410067397786 0.7395088321894974 0.08335407347392443
>> 0.9908990998709222 0.6563403470680476 0.9422669325824669
>> 0.967619446504451 0.995657061136656 0.14417657902926084]
>>
>> +? Lots of precision
>> - Not aligned
>> - Square brackets
>>
>> julia> dump(rand(3,3))
>> Array(Float64,(3,3)) 3x3 Array{Float64,2}:
>> 0.60914 0.149033 0.431226
>> 0.0413379 0.872331 0.24617
>> 0.528959 0.225907 0.938011
>>
>> + Aligned
>> + "Nice" amount of precision
>> - Type info
>>
>> For 3D, the output of print is a bit confusing (just prints the three
>> slices - not even clear which slices though), whereas dump prints something
>> unambiguous
>>
>> julia> dump(rand(2,2,2))
>> Array(Float64,(2,2,2)) 2x2x2 Array{Float64,3}:
>> [:, :, 1] =
>> 0.698132 0.646175
>> 0.0263156 0.721012
>>
>> [:, :, 2] =
>> 0.687558 0.0205718
>> 0.89261 0.383277
>>
>> Now I was digging around with auto-complete and found the un-exported
>> function print_matrix which has the the alignment of dump, and precision of
>> print - but only works for <= 2D.
>>
>> Is there some (reasonable) way to export that nice dump functionality
>> without the type info? I tried to trace the dump methods through but got
>> lost.
>>
>
