>
> So in conclusion, I really was overusing collect().

Yup... and this is one reason I think the change is valuable... it helps
make people think "why did they do this??"

 if there is a way to avoid collect() for a matrix operation, I'd love to
> know.


What type of operation do you mean?  Maybe there's a way?  If you're
referring to your example above, you can of course do:  ones(5)*(0:0.01:1)'

Or if you really want to take advantage of minimal
allocations: linspace(1,1,5)*(0:0.01:1)'

(Of course the matrix allocation outweighs the temporaries in this
example...)


On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Daniel Carrera <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks.
>
> On 7 March 2016 at 15:10, Tamas Papp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> See
>> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/7941
>> and the related issues, particularly
>> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/2488
>> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/3737
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Tamas
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 07 2016, Daniel Carrera wrote:
>>
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > In the last major release of Julia some syntax was deprecated. For
>> example:
>> >
>> > {"a" => 3} # Deprecated. Use Dict("a" => 3)
>> >
>> > [1:10] # Deprecated. Use collect(1:10)
>> >
>> > There was also a change with the commas, but I can't remember what it
>> is.
>> > Some times I get an error saying that apparently I'm supposed to use a
>> > semicolon, but I can't remember when that happens.
>> >
>> > Anyway, I miss the earlier cleaner syntax. Mainly, I don't like
>> > "collect(1:10)". I don't mind Dict(), because it's not something I write
>> > very often, and "Dict" is short enough. But I don't like having to write
>> > "collect(1:10)" as often as I do. Can someone explain what happened?
>> What
>> > was wrong with the original syntax? MATLAB has managed to survive with
>> the
>> > [1:10] syntax for a long time, so I don't see why it's so terrible.
>> >
>> > In general, I like compact syntax and that is one of the reasons why I
>> > switched to Julia. I would rather not see Julia become more verbose over
>> > time.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Daniel.
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to