[Numpy-discussion] Args for ones, zeros, rand, eye, ones, empty (possible 1.0 change?)

Robert Kern robert.kern at gmail.com
Sun Jul 2 23:37:49 CDT 2006

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.

i. Yes, you're still misunderstanding my arguments.
ii. I'm bloody sick of rehashing it, so I won't be responding further.

Robert Kern

"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 mailing list