in the REPL, would it be reasonable to have ?? be able to do an
apropos() search?
Cameron
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Viral Shah vi...@mayin.org wrote:
I think that most new users are unlikely to know about apropos. Perhaps we
should put it in the julia banner.
We can say something
+1
On Friday, July 18, 2014 3:40:14 PM UTC-5, Viral Shah wrote:
I think that most new users are unlikely to know about apropos. Perhaps we
should put it in the julia banner.
We can say something like:
Type help() for function usage or apropos() to search the
documentation.
apropos()
+1. For some reason my fingers always get tied up when typing apropos
There's one complication here, which is that a single ? already changes the
mode of the REPL into help mode. So this would have to be a mode only
triggerable from inside of help mode.
-- John
On Jul 21, 2014, at 6:47 PM, Ethan Anderes ethanande...@gmail.com wrote:
+1. For some reason my
Would it be crazy to make ? just do apropos? Interestingly, I was just
thinking of making ;; trigger sticky shell mode where you have to actively
escape to get back to julia mode.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 6:48 PM, John Myles White johnmyleswh...@gmail.com
wrote:
There's one complication here,
I think that most new users are unlikely to know about apropos. Perhaps we
should put it in the julia banner.
We can say something like:
Type help() for function usage or apropos() to search the documentation.
apropos() could then just print a message about how to use it, just like
help()
Indeed it is one of the first things one learns in numerical lectures that
one has to avoid explicitely calculating an inverse matrix.
Still, I think that there various small problems in geometry where I don't
see an issue of invering a 2x2 or 3x3 matrix. It depends, as so often, a
lot on the
Hello colleague,
On Thursday, July 17, 2014 6:25:27 AM UTC+2, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
It's a bit of numerical computing lore that inv is bad – both for
performance and for numerical accuracy. It turns out it may not be so bad
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.6035v1.pdf after all, but everyone is
If the inverse of a matrix is your final result, rather than some
intermediate calculation, it might still be possible to use \ (and, at
least in some cases, advantageous):
julia A = rand(10,10)
julia @time inv(A)
elapsed time: 0.002185216 seconds (21336 bytes allocated)
julia @time inv(A)
`inv` will do that for
you. http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/stdlib/linalg/#Base.inv
It's a little unfortunate that the help text is Matrix inverse, yet
searching for that exact phrase yields no results at all. Is it possible to
make documentation search be full-text for help text as well?
But apropos does find it:
julia apropos(matrix inverse)
INFO: Loading help data...
Base.inv(M)
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:59:05 PM UTC+2, Tomas Lycken wrote:
`inv` will do that for you.
http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/stdlib/linalg/#Base.inv
It's a little unfortunate
I think that one of the main reasons it is so difficult to find is that inv
should generally be avoided.
As Mauro wrote, if you can, rephrase your problem so that you can use x = A\b.
I agree. What I meant is that since inv is avoided, it's not used nor well
referenced in search engines or on this list. :)
any reason of avoiding inv?
It's a bit of numerical computing lore that inv is bad – both for
performance and for numerical accuracy. It turns out it may not be so bad
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.6035v1.pdf after all, but everyone is still
kind of wary of it and there are often better ways to solve problems where
inv would be
15 matches
Mail list logo
