There's also x = [1 2; 3 4] x[:,[1]] # returns 2D array x[:, 1] # returns 1D array x[1, :] # AFAIK, returns 2D under Julia 0.4 and 1D under 0.5
I like the 0.5 behaviour a lot better. On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:34 PM UTC-5, Tim Holy wrote: > > Glen, that's a great list of bugs. Have you considered filing them as > issue(s)? > > Some immediate thoughts: > > On Wednesday, December 02, 2015 06:17:06 AM Glen O wrote: > > As an example, reshape(1,1) throws an error > > I'm not sure that's a real problem, although indeed implementing reshape > on > numbers would be more efficient than reshape([1], (1,1,1)) because in the > latter > you're creating two arrays. So possibly this is something we should > implement. > > > , and squeeze(1,(1,)) gets stuck > > in an infinite loop. > > That's definitely a bug. It's surely a very slow stack overflow (infinite > recursion). > > > vec(1) > > Similar to reshape...maybe/maybe not. > > > throws an error, as does cumsum(1). > > Since sum(1) works, this should too. Bug. > > > And of > > course there's the issue with getindex involving colon, arrays or ranges > > for indexing (you'd think that, just as a[[1,1]] gives the value of a[1] > > twice for an array, that it would do the same for a scalar, but it > doesn't). > > Bug > > > I can understand the desire not to have them be identical (since there > are > > cases where a function should do a different thing for a number than it > > does for an array), yet allow partial compatibility... it's just a > little > > arbitrary which cases work and which don't. > > Reports would help---not everyone hits these (I'm not sure I ever have). > >
