Sounds good. I will close the PR. - Joe
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Sebastian Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 13:36 -0400, Joseph Fox-Rabinovitz wrote: > > Would it break backwards compatibility to add the input as a return > > value to np.random.shuffle? I doubt anyone out there is relying on > > the None return value. > > > > Well, python discourages this IIRC, and opts to not do these things for > in place functions (see random package specifically). Numpy breaks this > in a few places, but that is mostly because we have the out argument as > an optional input argument. > > As is, it is a nice way of making people not write: > > new = np.random.shuffle(old) > > and think old won't change. So I think we should probably just stick > with the python/Guido van Rossum ideals, or did those change? > > - Sebastian > > > > > The change is trivial, and allows shuffling a new array in one line > > instead of two: > > > > x = np.random.shuffle(np.array(some_junk)) > > > > I've implemented the change in PR#10893. > > > > Regards, > > > > - Joe > > _______________________________________________ > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
