# Trouble with sparse matrix transpose in 0.7 (and now 1.0 !?)

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/trouble-with-sparse-matrix-transpose-in-0-7-and-now-1-0/13087>\
**Category:** General Usage\
**Created:** [August 9, 2018, 12:55pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/trouble-with-sparse-matrix-transpose-in-0-7-and-now-1-0/13087 "2018-08-09T12:55:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DNF](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/dnf/32/10191_2.png) [@DNF](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/DNF)\
**Post date:** [August 9, 2018, 3:27pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/trouble-with-sparse-matrix-transpose-in-0-7-and-now-1-0/13087/10 "2018-08-09T15:27:13Z")

</div>

> [@danspielman](#):
>
> Those who are worried about the performance could use `reshape`

I disagree, notational convenience should favour math-like operations. I also suspect this is the more common use-case. In your use-case you can achieve the wanted behaviour using `collect`, with zero performance loss.

In general, it is simpler to take a lazy operation and make it eager, than the other way around.

As for my example, it is trivial to come up with one where copying behaviour would have significant cost.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/trouble-with-sparse-matrix-transpose-in-0-7-and-now-1-0/13087)._