[Numpy-discussion] Args for rand and randn: call for a vote
schofield at ftw.at
Sat Jul 8 06:07:11 CDT 2006
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.
* Should numpy.rand and numpy.randn accept sequences of dimensions as
arguments, like rand((3,3)), as an alternative to rand(3,3)?
* Should rand((3,3)) and randn((3,3)) continue to raise a TypeError?
More information about the Numpy-discussion