Also fwiw, I think the 0-based, half-open interval is one of the best features of Python indexing and yes, I do use random integers to index into my arrays and would not appreciate having to litter my code with "-1" everywhere.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Alan Isaac <alan.is...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/17/2016 3:42 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > >> random.randint() was the one big exception, and it was considered a >> mistake for that very reason, soft-deprecated in favor of >> random.randrange(). >> > > > randrange also has its detractors: > https://code.activestate.com/lists/python-dev/138358/ > and following. > > I think if we start citing persistant conventions, the > persistent convention across *many* languages that the bounds > provided for a random integer range are inclusive also counts for > something, especially when the names are essentially shared. > > But again, I am just trying to be clear about what is at issue, > not push for a change. I think citing non-existent standards > is not helpful. I think the discrepancy between the Python > standard library and numpy for a function going by a common > name is harmful. (But then, I teach.) > > fwiw, > > Alan > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
