I can understand the desire to generalise the idea of matrix multiplication for when the arrays are not both 2-D but taking the complex conjugate makes absolutely no sense in the context of matrix multiplication.
You note above that "vecmat is defined as x†A" but my interpretation of that is that vecmat(x, A) == matmul(conjugate(transpose(x)), A). If you want to define vecmat like that then maybe that makes sense in some contexts but including the conjugate as an implicit part of matmul is something that I would find very confusing: such a function should not be called matmul.
Ah, that's indeed fair. So, I'll remove the idea to change what the special-casing of 1d arrays does in matmul. Options should just be to keep things as they are, or to remove that ability altogether. I'd personally tend to the latter. -- Marten