`size(_, dims=i)` would be more consistent than `size(_, i)` #55697

jariji · 2024-09-06T00:34:28Z

Many functions f take f(::AbstractArray; dims=:) but size(::AbstractArray [,dims]) is positional. It would be more consistent to support ;dims= and specifically dims=: as the default.

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

`size(_, dims=i)` would be more consistent than `size(_, i)` #55697

`size(_, dims=i)` would be more consistent than `size(_, i)` #55697

jariji commented Sep 6, 2024

size(_, dims=i) would be more consistent than size(_, i) #55697

size(_, dims=i) would be more consistent than size(_, i) #55697

Comments

jariji commented Sep 6, 2024

`size(_, dims=i)` would be more consistent than `size(_, i)` #55697

`size(_, dims=i)` would be more consistent than `size(_, i)` #55697