Pau Gargallo wrote: > On 7/8/06, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ed Schofield wrote: >>> * 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? >> This is a false dichotomy. There are more choices here. >> >> * Remove rand and randn (at least from the toplevel namespace) and promote >> the >> use of random_sample and standard_normal which already follow the tuple >> convention. > > i just wanted to point out another possible choice: > > * enable numpy.rand((3,3)) and make numpy.rand(3,3) raise an error > as zeros and ones do. > > I suppose that you all discussed a lot about this choice also, but it > still seems very reasonable to me :-(
Extensively! The problem I have with it is that there are already functions which do exactly that. Why have two functions that do exactly the same thing with exactly the same interface but different names? I say, pick one and get rid of the other if you must remove rand(3,3). -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/numpy-discussion
