For outer, I think that it would be clearer to say that it repeats (or
clones?) the whole array along the specified dimensions. For inner, I think
it's ok.
Looking at the tests for repeat, I think we could use this as an example:
As an illustrative example, let's consider array A:
A = [1 2;3 4]
2x2 Array{Int64,2}:
1 2
3 4
If you want to repeat array A along the second dimension:
repeat(A,inner=[1,1],outer=[1,2])
2x4 Array{Int64,2}:
1 2 1 2
3 4 3 4
You can also repeat the columns first:
repeat(A,inner=[1,2],outer=[1,1])
2x4 Array{Int64,2}:
1 1 2 2
3 3 4 4
You can also create a new array that repeats A along a third dimension:
repeat(A,inner=[1,1],outer=[1,1,2])
2x2x2 Array{Int64,3}:
[:, :, 1] =
1 2
3 4
[:, :, 2] =
1 2
3 4
Is there a limit on how a docstring can be? Could we add more examples?
On Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:59:14 PM UTC+2, John Myles White wrote:
>
> Rewriting the documentation for repeat would be great. I’m the guilty
> party for that piece of documentation and agree that it’s not very good.
> Rewriting it from scratch is probably a good idea.
>
> I’m not sure I think `tile` is much better than `outer`. Maybe we should
> use something like `perelement` and `perslice` as the keywords? If we
> revise the keywords, we should also find terms to describe one additional
> piece of functionality I’d like to add to repeat: the ability to repeat
> specific elements a distinct number of times. That’s the main thing that
> repeat is missing that you’d get from R’s rep function.
>
> If you’re looking for good examples for the documentation, there are a
> bunch of tests for `repeat` you could use as inspiration:
> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/b320b66db8fb97cc3b96fe4089b7b15528ab346c/test/arrayops.jl#L302
>
> — John
>
> On Jun 12, 2014, at 6:17 AM, Patrick O'Leary <patrick...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 7:57:03 AM UTC-5, Bruno Rodrigues wrote:
>>
>> repeat() is much more useful that Matlab's repmat(), but the docstring is
>> unclear, at least for me. Unfortunately, I don't have, right now, any
>> proposals to correct it. Could maybe an example be added to the docstring?
>> Maybe it could be clearer this way.
>>
>
> I think an example would help make this immediately obvious. I also wonder
> if the keyword arguments could be better--I don't have a good alternative
> for "inner", but "tile" seems like a good alternative to "outer". That may
> at least be useful in a rework of the doc.
>
> Note that you don't have to supply both keyword arguments, only one, so if
> you're not using the feature of "inner" you can simply omit it.
>
>
>
