[Numpy-discussion] Args for rand and randn: call for a vote
schofield at ftw.at
Sun Jul 9 00:58:02 CDT 2006
On 09/07/2006, at 12:04 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
> Ed Schofield wrote:
>> Last week's discussion on rand() and randn() seemed to indicate a
>> sentiment that they ought to take tuples for consistency with ones,
>> zeros, eye, identity, and empty -- that, although they are supposed
>> to be convenience functions, they are inconvenient precisely because
>> of their inconsistency with these other functions. This issue has
>> been raised many times over the past several months.
>> Travis made a change in r2572 to allow tuples as arguments, then took
>> it out again a few hours later, apparently unsure about whether this
>> was a good idea.
>> I'd like to call for a vote on what people would prefer, and then ask
>> Travis to make a final pronouncement before the feature freeze.
> I would like to ask about the purpose of calling for a vote, here.
> authority do you intend the result to have? If you are just asking
> for a straw
> poll of opinions from the list to inform Travis' decision, do you
> think that he
> hasn't read the previous discussions? Are previous non-participants
> being drawn
> out of the woodwork? ...
No authority at all -- it's just a straw poll. My intention is
merely to ascertain whether there's indeed a groundswell of public
opinion for this change among NumPy's users, as is my suspicion.
Previous non-participants are indeed coming out of the woodwork.
The reason I've listed only one alternative to the status quo is that
this is a simple, concrete proposal that has bubbled up several times
from the discussion, which may have broad enough support to tip
I know that you, Robert, disagree with the proposal and have put
forward an alternative. Fair enough, but let's now hear what others
have to say.
More information about the Numpy-discussion