[Numpy-discussion] Args for rand and randn: call for a vote
Alan G Isaac
aisaac at american.edu
Wed Jul 12 08:42:11 CDT 2006
Robert makes his case clearly and persuasively.
Without pretending to challenge his argument in any way,
I would just like to clarify what is at issue
for some of the teaching crowd (or for me in any case).
- Get up and running very quickly even with students who
lack a programming background. This means having rand()
and randn() in the top-level namespace is nice, since
I use them early and often.
- Avoid confusion and frustration. This is the basis for
having a "consistent" calling convention for array
constructors (pace Robert's arguments about consistency).
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Robert Kern apparently wrote:
> And mark my words, if we make rand() polymorphic, we will
> get just as many newbies coming to the list asking why
> ones(3, 4) doesn't work.
That is plausible.
If polymorphism is chosen for rand() and randn(), I suppose
I would address this by documenting the current API as
present for backwards compatability only. That allows
a quick answer, but perhaps does not preclude the questions.
More information about the Numpy-discussion