[Numpy-discussion] Args for ones, zeros, rand, eye, ones, empty (possible 1.0 change?)
Alan G Isaac
aisaac at american.edu
Mon Jul 3 00:54:17 CDT 2006
- Previous message: [Numpy-discussion] Args for ones, zeros, rand, eye, ones, empty (possible 1.0 change?)
- Next message: [Numpy-discussion] Args for ones, zeros, rand, eye, ones, empty (possible 1.0 change?)
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
> Alan G Isaac wrote:
>> I argue that rand and randn should accept a tuple as the
>> first argument. Whether the old behavior is also allowed,
>> I have no opinion. But the numpy-consistent behavior should
>> definitely be allowed. I perhaps wrongly understood Robert
>> to argue that the current behavior of rand and randn is not
>> a wart since i. alternative tuple-accepting functions are
>> available and ii. the suprising behavior is documented.
>> This seems quite wrong to me, and I am farily confident that
>> such an argument would not be offered except in defence of
>> legacy code.
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006, Robert Kern apparently wrote:
> i. Yes, you're still misunderstanding my arguments.
> ii. I'm bloody sick of rehashing it, so I won't be responding further.
Sorry, I should not have said: "not a wart".
I perhaps should have instead said: "an acceptable wart",
due to issues of backward compatability.
At least that's what you implied here:
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/numpy-discussion/3150643
And note that you emphasized the availability of the alternative functions here:
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/numpy-discussion/3150702
I made the documentation comment based on your action in response
to this conversation: adding documentation.
You make a claim not an argument when you say:
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/numpy-discussion/3150643
*Changing* the API of rand() and randn() doesn't
solve any problem. *Removing* them might.
Your primary argument against changing the API, as far as
I can see, is that allowing *both* the extant behavior and
the numpy consistent behavior will result in confusing code.
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/numpy-discussion/3150643
Is this a knock-down argument? I think not.
But in any case, I did not argue (above) for the combined
behaviors: only for the numpy-consistent behavior.
(Or for removing rand and randn, an action which I view as
inferior but acceptable, and which you seem---at the link
above---willing to consider.)
To repeat a point I made before:
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/numpy-discussion/3150728
numpy should take a step so that this question goes
away, rather than maintain the status quo and see it crop up continually.
(I.e., its recurrence should be understood to signal a problem.)
Apologies in advance for any misrepresentations,
Alan Isaac
- Previous message: [Numpy-discussion] Args for ones, zeros, rand, eye, ones, empty (possible 1.0 change?)
- Next message: [Numpy-discussion] Args for ones, zeros, rand, eye, ones, empty (possible 1.0 change?)
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the Numpy-discussion
mailing list