As someone who has never used repmat, I can't comment on that, but the "automatic squashing" makes perfect sense to me. The first syntax simplifies the structure down to a 1-D instead of a 2-D array with only one row (repmat aside, why would I want to keep the extra dimension if it doesn't contain any information?)
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Joshua Jones wrote: > > The change to indexing within matrices in 0.5.0 is fundamentally > counterintuitive. For example: > > julia> frame32 = randn(16,7); > > julia> size(frame32[1,:]) > (7,) > > julia> size(frame32[1:1,:]) > (1,7) > > To be quite blunt, I think this is a terrible contradiction. It completely > breaks the repmat syntax that people have used in other languages for more > than 20 years. To obtain what my code *was* doing last week, I now need > to do one of: > julia> repmat(frame32[1,:]', 16, 1) > julia> repmat(frame32[1:1,:], 16, 1) > > In plain English, my code needs to take the transpose of an extracted row > for the result to be a row vector. Isn't this the very definition of > nonreflexive syntax? >
