Docs inconsistent on string interpolation of arrays

[tkelman]

Someone brought this up on IRC the other day, see this line:

  | | |_| | | | (_| |  |  Version 0.3.0-prerelease+3911 (2014-06-27 16:05 UTC)
 _/ |\__'_|_|_|\__'_|  |  Commit 19582f7 (0 days old master)
|__/                   |  i686-w64-mingw32

julia> v = [1,2,3]
3-element Array{Int32,1}:
 1
 2
 3

julia> "v: $v"
"v: [1,2,3]"

I'm not sure whether this is a regression, or just a change relative to what the docs say ("v: 1\n2\n3\n").

[elextr]

           _

_ _ ()_ | A fresh approach to technical computing
() | () () | Documentation: http://docs.julialang.org
_ _ | | __ _ | Type "help()" to list help topics
| | | | | | |/ ` | |
| | || | | | (| | | Version 0.2.1 (2014-02-11 06:30 UTC)
/ |_'|||__'| |
|__/ | x86_64-linux-gnu

julia> v = [1,2,3]
3-element Array{Int64,1}:
1
2
3

julia> "v: $v"
"v: 1\n2\n3\n"

Looks like a regression, old behaviour matches display new behaviour matches show.

The question is which is best/more consistent?

[JeffBezanson]

The new output is better. We should update the docs.

[tkelman]

Judging by the last commit that touched this line (b995da5), will doctest catch this kind of thing automatically?

[ivarne]

I would think that it should, but it seems like nobody is currently running doctest on a regular basis. @nolta