"Indexing" with curly braces already means something – that's how you specify type parameters. Unfortunately, there are not very many ASCII paired brackets.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Bob Nnamtrop <[email protected]> wrote: > I think using curly braces to denote indexing with dropped singleton > dimensions would be nice: > > eg > a[1,:,:] works as now, returns an Array with 3 dimensions > a{1,:,:} returns an Array with 2 dimensions > > I realize this has syntax conflicts at this point but it seems it could be > made to work. > > Bob > > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:05 AM, ggggg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Would it be possible and/or worthwhile to allow indexing with dropped >> singleton dimensions with a period modified. >> >> eg >> a[1,:,:] works as now, returns an Array with 3 dimensions >> a.[1,:,:] returns an Array with 2 dimensions >> >> It sort of fits into the use of . as a modifier to represent >> broadcasting. >> >> On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 6:31:31 AM UTC-6, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >> >>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>>> > <[email protected] >>>> >>>> >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >
