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

Robert Kern robert.kern at gmail.com
Fri Jun 2 16:42:31 EDT 2006

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.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.)

I'll check in a change to the docstring later today.

-- 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

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list