Thanks!
Could you perhaps point me to a place where these sort of things may be
documented?
Trying to adopt the language has been less painful than Python was. Python
however, has better documentation currently for these kind of small things.
Python is also far more mature so go_figure! (go_figure! alters its
contents :D)
It may just be me however missing an obvious result in Google.
On Wednesday, 16 July 2014 03:11:30 UTC+2, Kevin Squire wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> You can actually use splice!:
>
> julia> splice!(x, 3:2, y)
> 0-element Array{Int64,1}
>
> julia> x
> 8-element Array{Int64,1}:
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 4
> 5
> 6
> 7
> 8
>
> 3:2 is a convention in julia that indicates the (empty) location in the
> array between index 2 and index 3 (e.g., searchsorted(x,3) for your
> original x will return 3:2 as the insertion point).
>
> Note that splice returns any removed ("spliced out") elements, which is
> why the return value of the first command above is empty
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Cheers,
> Kevin
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Michael Louwrens <
> [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> Should insert! not be able to insert a collection?
>>
>> x = [1,2,7,8]
>> y = [3,4,5,6]
>> insert!(x,2+1,y)
>>
>> Is then unable to complete the insertion and create [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8].
>> There is a costlier way to do this at the moment however.
>>
>> splice! almost replicates the required functionality but it replaces the
>> item at 2 instead of inserting items after position2.
>>
>> x = [1,2,7,8]
>> y = [3,4,5,6]
>> splice!(x,2,unshift!(y,x[2]))
>>
>> This is about 20% slower but does work.
>>
>> I was surprised that insert! inserts the item before the item at that
>> index instead of after. Could this perhaps be mentioned in the doc for
>> insert!?
>> Perhaps my Google-Fu is weak, but I could not find any reference to say
>> which behaviour it should have.
>>
>> Just wanted to point out that currently insert! only works for a single
>> item instead of a single item and collections and to inquire if there is
>> not perhaps a better workaround than the above.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
>
