On Mi, 2016-02-17 at 21:53 +0000, G Young wrote: > "Explicit is better than implicit" - can't argue with that. It > doesn't seem like the PR has gained much traction, so I'll close it. >
Thanks for the effort though! Sometimes we get a bit carried away with doing fancy stuff, and I guess the idea is likely a bit too fancy for wide application. - Sebastian > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Sebastian Berg < > sebast...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > > On Mi, 2016-02-17 at 22:10 +0100, Sebastian Berg wrote: > > > On Mi, 2016-02-17 at 20:48 +0000, Robert Kern wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:43 PM, G Young <gfyoun...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Josef: I don't think we are making people think more. > > They're > > > > > all > > > > keyword arguments, so if you don't want to think about them, > > then > > > > you > > > > leave them as the defaults, and everyone is happy. > > > > > > > > I believe that Josef has the code's reader in mind, not the > > code's > > > > writer. As a reader of other people's code (and I count 6 > > -months > > > > -ago > > > > -me as one such "other people"), I am sure to eventually > > encounter > > > > all of the different variants, so I will need to know all of > > them. > > > > > > > > > > Completely agree. Greg, if you need more then a few minutes to > > > explain > > > it in this case, there seems little point. It seems to me even > > the > > > worst cases of your examples would be covered by writing code > > like: > > > > > > np.random.randint(np.iinfo(np.uint8).min, 10, dtype=np.uint8) > > > > > > And *everyone* will immediately know what is meant with just > > minor > > > extra effort for writing it. We should keep the analogy to > > "range" as > > > much as possible. Anything going far beyond that, can be > > confusing. > > > On > > > first sight I am not convinced that there is a serious > > convenience > > > gain > > > by doing magic here, but this is a simple case: > > > > > > "Explicit is better then implicit" > > > > > > since writing the explicit code is easy. It might also create > > weird > > > bugs if the completely unexpected (most users would probably not > > even > > > realize it existed) happens and you get huge numbers because you > > > happened to have a `low=0` in there. Especially your point 2) > > seems > > > confusing. As for 3) if I see `np.random.randint(high=3)` I think > > I > > > would assume [0, 3).... > > > > > > > OK, that was silly, that is what happens of course. So it is > > explicit > > in the sense that you have pass in at least one `None` explicitly. > > > > But I am still not sure that the added convenience is big and easy > > to > > understand [1], if it was always lowest for low and highest for > > high, I > > remember get it, but it seems more complex (though None does also > > look > > a a bit like "default" and "default" is 0 for low). > > > > - Sebastian > > > > [1] As in the trade-off between added complexity vs. added > > convenience. > > > > > > > Additionally, I am not sure the maximum int range is such a > > common > > > need > > > anyway? > > > > > > - Sebastian > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Robert Kern > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > > > > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
