Robert Kern schrieb:
>
> My point is that there is no need to change rand() and randn() to the "new"
> interface. The "new" interface is already there: random.random() and
> random.standard_normal().
>
Ok thanks for the responses and sorry for not searching the archives
about this.
I tend to sh
Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006, Robert Kern apparently wrote:
>
>>My point is that there is no need to change rand() and randn() to the "new"
>>interface. The "new" interface is already there: random.random() and
>>random.standard_normal().
>
> Yes of course; that has always been
>> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006, Robert Kern apparently wrote:
>>> Changing the API of rand() and randn() doesn't solve any
>>> problem. Removing them might.
> Alan G Isaac wrote:
>> I think this is too blunt an argument. For example,
>> use of the old interface might issue a deprecation warning.
>>
Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006, Robert Kern apparently wrote:
>
>>Changing the API of rand() and randn() doesn't solve any
>>problem. Removing them might.
>
> I think this is too blunt an argument. For example,
> use of the old interface might issue a deprecation warning.
> This wo
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006, Robert Kern apparently wrote:
> Changing the API of rand() and randn() doesn't solve any
> problem. Removing them might.
I think this is too blunt an argument. For example,
use of the old interface might issue a deprecation warning.
This would make it very likely that all
Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006, Sven Schreiber apparently wrote:
>
>>why doesn't rand accept a shape tuple as argument? I find
>>the difference between the argument types of rand and (for
>>example) zeros somewhat confusing. ... Can anybody offer
>>an intuition/explanation?
>
>
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006, Sven Schreiber apparently wrote:
> why doesn't rand accept a shape tuple as argument? I find
> the difference between the argument types of rand and (for
> example) zeros somewhat confusing. ... Can anybody offer
> an intuition/explanation?
Backward compatability, I bel
Sven Schreiber wrote:
> Hi all,
> this may be a stupid question, but why doesn't rand accept a shape tuple
> as argument? I find the difference between the argument types of rand
> and (for example) zeros somewhat confusing. (See below for
> illustration.) Can anybody offer an intuition/explanation
Hi all,
this may be a stupid question, but why doesn't rand accept a shape tuple
as argument? I find the difference between the argument types of rand
and (for example) zeros somewhat confusing. (See below for
illustration.) Can anybody offer an intuition/explanation?
(This is still on 0.9.6 becau
