[Numpy-discussion] rand argument question (original) (raw)

Alan G Isaac aisaac at american.edu
Fri Jun 2 16:19:51 EDT 2006

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. This would make it very likely that all new code use the new interface.

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.standardnormal().

Yes of course; that has always been your point. In an earlier post, I indicated that this is your usual response.

What your point does not addres: the question about rand and randn keeps cropping up on this list.

My point is: numpy should take a step so that this question goes away, rather than maintain the status quo and see it crop up continually. (I.e., its recurrence should be understood to signal a problem.)

Cheers, Alan

PS I'll shut up about this now.

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list