[Numpy-discussion] rand argument question
Alan G Isaac
aisaac at american.edu
Fri Jun 2 15:19:51 CDT 2006
>> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006, Robert Kern apparently wrote:
>>> Changing the API of rand() and randn() doesn't solve any
>>> problem. Removing them might.
> Alan G Isaac wrote:
>> I think this is too blunt an argument. For example,
>> use of the old interface might issue a deprecation warning.
>> This would make it very likely that all new code use the new
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006, Robert Kern apparently wrote:
> My point is that there is no need to change rand() and randn() to the "new"
> interface. The "new" interface is already there: random.random() and
Yes of course; that has always been your point.
In an earlier post, I indicated that this is your usual response.
What your point does not addres:
the question about rand and randn keeps cropping up on this list.
My point is:
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.)
PS I'll shut up about this now.
More information about the Numpy-discussion