It depends on what you mean. If you mean non-copying slices, then yes. If you mean that all singleton slices are dropped, then that seems less likely.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Neal Becker <ndbeck...@gmail.com> wrote: > I hope the goal is for slicing to work like numpy. > > Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > > No, this is a pretty contentious issue. A lot of the relevant discussion > is > > in #4774 <https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/4774>. The one thing > > everyone agrees on which is going to happen in 0.4 for sure is that > slicing > > will generally create views into the original array rather than copying > the > > data. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Christoph Ortner > > <christophortn...@gmail.com > >> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 19:12:01 UTC+1, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > >>> > >>> Are slices in Julia any worse than in Matlab? If so, what does Matlab > do > >>> that's better? I agree that our current slicing needs improvements > (they > >>> are planned), but it is largely due to its Matlab heritage. > >>> > >> > >> I did not mean to apply that Julia is worse in this respect. Off the > cuff, > >> I would say slicing is no better or worse than in matlab. And, for the > >> record, slicing multi-dimensional arrays in Matlab has been driving me > mad > >> for some quite some time. > >> > >> I've skimmed the discussions in the "issues" lists on github, and I very > >> much liked the idea of distinguishing > >> a[i:i, :, :] > >> from > >> a[i, :, :] > >> until I remembered that I want > >> a[i,:] > >> to be a row-vector. But I can't have the cake and eat it too. > >> > >> Is there a consensus yet what the final slicing behaviour will be? > >> > >> --Christoph > >> > >> > -- > -- Those who don't understand recursion are doomed to repeat it > >
