Hi Anirudh, Thanks for asking this on dev@. I looked at the doc for sample_uniform and random_uniform, and found that the API is different. For sample_uniform, the type of arguments `low` and `high` is NDArray, while that of random_uniform's is float. I don't think they're going to be deprecated.
The recommended API to generate a random number is via the ndarray.random.* or symbol.random.*, which accept both float and NDArray, and under the hood invoke either sample_xxx or random_xxx correspondingly. Best, Haibin On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:42 PM, Anirudh Acharya <anirudhk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I had earlier filed an issue with functionality-duplication/code-refactor > here - https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11811 > > As per the suggestion in the github issue I would like to bring it to the > attention of the wider community - > > The operators defined in sample_op.cc and multisample_op.cc are seemingly > performing the same tasks. Both these files define the following operators > respectively > > sample_op.cc > ----------- > random_uniform > random_normal > random_gamma > random_exponential > random_poisson > random_negative_binomial > random_generalized_negative_binomial > > multisample_op.cc > ---------- > sample_uniform > sample_normal > sample_gamma > sample_exponential > sample_poisson > sample_negative_binomial > sample_generalized_negative_binomial > > The only difference that I can glean from the documentation is that > operators in multisample_op.ccperforms concurrent sampling from multiple > distributions, but the behavior of the operators is not different. > > Is sample_op.cc being retained for legacy reasons or backward > compatibility? Can it be deprecated or EOLed? Correct me if I am wrong > here. > > > Thanks > > Anirudh >
