[Numpy-discussion] Args for ones, zeros, rand, eye, ones, empty (possible 1.0 change?)
Robert Kern
robert.kern at gmail.com
Mon Jul 3 00:37:49 EDT 2006
- Previous message (by thread): [Numpy-discussion] Args for ones, zeros, rand, eye, ones, empty (possible 1.0 change?)
- Next message (by thread): [Numpy-discussion] Args for ones, zeros, rand, eye, ones, empty (possible 1.0 change?)
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
Alan G Isaac wrote:
> I argue that rand and randn should accept a tuple as the
> first argument. Whether the old behavior is also allowed,
> I have no opinion. But the numpy-consistent behavior should
> definitely be allowed. I perhaps wrongly understood Robert
> to argue that the current behavior of rand and randn is not
> a wart since i. alternative tuple-accepting functions are
> available and ii. the suprising behavior is documented.
> This seems quite wrong to me, and I am farily confident that
> such an argument would not be offered except in defence of
> legacy code.
i. Yes, you're still misunderstanding my arguments.
ii. I'm bloody sick of rehashing it, so I won't be responding further.
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
- Previous message (by thread): [Numpy-discussion] Args for ones, zeros, rand, eye, ones, empty (possible 1.0 change?)
- Next message (by thread): [Numpy-discussion] Args for ones, zeros, rand, eye, ones, empty (possible 1.0 change?)
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the NumPy-Discussion
mailing list