[Numpy-discussion] random.uniform documentation bug?
Tue Feb 23 14:55:02 CST 2010
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 14:51, Friedrich Romstedt
> 2010/2/23 Robert Kern <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> It helps a little, I agree, but not as much as simply changing the
>> names to something neutral like (a, b) as in the standard library. The
>> necessity for a backwards compatibility hack imposes additional costs
>> to making any such change. I don't think those costs are warranted by
>> the semantic confusion of allowing high < low.
> I agree fully. The (a, b) thing is the most elegant. And I also
> agree that the overhead renders it nearly useless, when one focuses on
> Sorry for making noise again with an unmature thought. It just came
> into my mind and looked so cute ... :-(
No worries! I'm not trying to discourage you from posting half-baked
thoughts. They're often correct!
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
More information about the NumPy-Discussion