[Numpy-discussion] Putting some random back into the top-level?

Sebastian Haase haase@msg.ucsf....
Wed Mar 14 12:50:54 CDT 2007

On 3/14/07, Timothy Hochberg <tim.hochberg@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 3/14/07, Sebastian Haase <haase@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Please remind me what's wrong with pylab's
> > rand and randn !
> > I just learned about their existence recently and thought
> > they seem quite handy and should  go directly into (the top-level of)
> numpy.
> > Functions that have the same name and do the same thing don't conflict
> > either ;-)
> I don't know what the problem, if any, is with rand and randn, but I can
> tell you what the problem with stuffing stuff in the main namespace is: it's
> allready much too crowded, which makes it difficult to find functions when
> you need them. Have you tried dir(numpy) recently?

Hey Tim,
yes, I have done this many times -- just to scare myself .... ;-)
As I see it most of them are "historical problems" -- and we will
likely be stuck with them forever -- since the 1.0 commitment
apparently doesn't even allow to make numpy.resize  and array.resize
to fill in the same way [[ one adds 0s, the other repeats the array ]]
 (Especially I'm thinking of hanning and hamming and other things I
understand even less ...)

The only argument here, was that one or two [ :-) ]  random functions
[ how about rand() and randn() ?]
would be nice to have "as a shortcut"....

Yes, I have some modules myself, containing a bunch of home-made
things, that I call "useful".
I understand the argument here was to get the "best possible" "common ground".

I don't have (very) strong feelings about this.

More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list