I mean, my whole busyness is about constructing matrices of Vec2/3/4, which inherit from DenseArray. So I'm basically forced, if I'm not missing something, to do quite a bit of work to get my [vec1 vec2 vec3] going. Especially, as transpose([vec1, vec2, vec3]) doesn't seem to work, bug or not isn't known to me.
2015-02-25 23:18 GMT+01:00 Simon Danisch <[email protected]>: > Well, the issue raised here was, how do you realize non concatening [a b > c]? This seems impossible now, even though that there are quite a few use > cases for it... > > 2015-02-25 23:13 GMT+01:00 Stefan Karpinski <[email protected]>: > >> I actually think the plan of [a,b,c] for construction without >> concatenation and [a;b;c] and [a b c] for concatenation is pretty good. I >> no longer feel that there's any need for a new bracket like [| |]. The >> thing that clicked for me is that [a;] isn't really concatenation at all >> anyway. >> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Simon Danisch <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> As Julia was the first language to introduce me to this kind of >>> constructs, I'm not sure about your used terms. >>> Concatenate for me would firstly mean, to just connect elements (that's >>> at least what the German translation suggests), which I would apply to the >>> process of putting the elements together into one array. The elements in my >>> case are the Vectors. >>> You seem to use it as synonymous with concatenation + flattening >>> (sticking to the function names I guess). >>> I'd say [a,b] is supposed to concatenate, but shouldn't flatten, right? >>> So yes, different syntax for concatenating, and concatenating+flattening >>> would make this case much, much clearer. >>> Then it's not this fuzzy magic thing, that sometimes happens and >>> sometimes not and both clearly encapsulates a concept and use the same >>> basic syntax. >>> So: >>> [vec, vec] => [vec, vec] # With optional typing, ensuring that you don't >>> end up with Any[] >>> [vec vec] => [vec vec] # With optional typing, ensuring that you don't >>> end up with Any[] >>> >>> [| vec, vec |] => [el1, el2, el3, el4, ...]# With optional typing, >>> ensuring that you don't end up with Any[] >>> [| vec vec |] => [el el2 ; el3 el4]# With optional typing, ensuring >>> that you don't end up with Any[] >>> >>> I do think, that this is very clear and consistent and doesn't leave >>> anything in doubt! >>> >>> >>> Am Mittwoch, 25. Februar 2015 19:00:01 UTC+1 schrieb Simon Danisch: >>> >>>> Hi there, >>>> I thought default concatenation was deprecated, to make it easier to >>>> create arrays of arrays... But it became rather impossible and confusing in >>>> the horizontal case, from what I see. >>>> Is there really not a single method left from the few ways in 0.35 of >>>> creating a horizontal vector of vectors? >>>> 0.4: >>>> https://gist.github.com/SimonDanisch/6972c1c090c608738e83#file- >>>> cat0-4-jl >>>> 0.3.5: >>>> https://gist.github.com/SimonDanisch/058ef76b2583c620b667#file- >>>> cat3-5-jl >>>> >>>> Am I missing something, or is this a bug?! >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Simon >>>> >>> >> >
