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 Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/numpy-discussion
