On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:27 PM Stephan Hoyer wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:39 AM Warren Weckesser <
> warren.weckes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is no bug, just a limitation in the API.
>>
>> When I draw without replacement, say, three values from a collection of
>> length five, the
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:39 AM Warren Weckesser <
warren.weckes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is no bug, just a limitation in the API.
>
> When I draw without replacement, say, three values from a collection of
> length five, the three values that I get are not independent. So really,
> this is
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:37 PM Warren Weckesser
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:32 AM Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:27 AM Warren Weckesser <
>> warren.weckes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/10/18, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>>> > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:32 AM Ralf Gommers
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:27 AM Warren Weckesser <
> warren.weckes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/10/18, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>> > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:00 PM Alan Isaac wrote:
>> >
>> >> I believe this was proposed in the
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:27 AM Warren Weckesser <
warren.weckes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/10/18, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:00 PM Alan Isaac wrote:
> >
> >> I believe this was proposed in the past to little enthusiasm,
> >> with the response, "you're using a
On 12/10/18, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:00 PM Alan Isaac wrote:
>
>> I believe this was proposed in the past to little enthusiasm,
>> with the response, "you're using a library; learn its functions".
>>
>
> Not only that, NumPy and the core libraries around it are the
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 8:26 AM Alan Isaac wrote:
> On 12/10/2018 11:20 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> > there is nothing wrong with the current API
>
> Just to be clear: you completely reject the past
> cautions on this list against creating APIs
> with flag parameters. Is that correct?
>
> Or is
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 8:27 AM Alan Isaac wrote:
> On 12/10/2018 11:20 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> > there is nothing wrong with the current API
>
> Just to be clear: you completely reject the past
> cautions on this list against creating APIs
> with flag parameters. Is that correct?
>
There's
I think the current random infrastructure is mostly considered frozen
anyway, even for bugfixes, given the pending NEP to produce a new random
infrastructure and the commitment therein to guarantee that old random
streams behave the same way given their extensive use in testing and so on.
Maybe
On 12/10/2018 11:20 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
there is nothing wrong with the current API
Just to be clear: you completely reject the past
cautions on this list against creating APIs
with flag parameters. Is that correct?
Or is "nothing wrong" just a narrow approval in
this particular case?
On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:00 PM Alan Isaac wrote:
> I believe this was proposed in the past to little enthusiasm,
> with the response, "you're using a library; learn its functions".
>
Not only that, NumPy and the core libraries around it are the standard for
numerical/statistical computing. If
I believe this was proposed in the past to little enthusiasm,
with the response, "you're using a library; learn its functions".
Nevertheless, given the addition of `choices` to the Python
random module in 3.6, it would be nice to have the *same name*
for parallel functionality in numpy.random.
12 matches
Mail list logo
