Actually, it has already been deprecated because I did it myself. :) On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Alan Isaac <alan.is...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Behavior of random integer generation: > > Python randint [a,b] > > MATLAB randi [a,b] > > Mma RandomInteger [a,b] > > haskell randomR [a,b] > > GAUSS rndi [a,b] > > Maple rand [a,b] > > > > In short, NumPy's `randint` is non-standard (and, > > I would add, non-intuitive). Presumably was due > > due to relying on a float draw from [0,1) along > > with the use of floor. > > No, never was. It is implemented so because Python uses semi-open integer > intervals by preference because it plays most nicely with 0-based indexing. > Not sure about all of those systems, but some at least are 1-based > indexing, so closed intervals do make sense. > > The Python stdlib's random.randint() closed interval is considered a > mistake by python-dev leading to the implementation and preference for > random.randrange() instead. > > > The divergence in behavior between the (later) Python > > function of the same name is particularly unfortunate. > > Indeed, but unfortunately, this mistake dates way back to Numeric times, > and easing the migration to numpy was a priority in the heady days of numpy > 1.0. > > > So I suggest further work on this function is > > not called for, and use of `random_integers` > > should be encouraged. Probably NumPy's `randint` > > should be deprecated. > > Not while I'm here. Instead, `random_integers()` is discouraged and > perhaps might eventually be deprecated. > > -- > Robert Kern > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
