Sasha schrieb: > > Consistency is already lost because 1d case allows both ones(5) and > ones([5]) (and even ones((5,)) if anyone can tolerate that > abomination). I don't think those who argue for sequence only are > willing to require ones([5]).
Imho consistency is not lost there precisely because one can use ones((5)) if one is so inclined. So the double-parentheses habit (or call it tuple-habit if you like) goes through. In contrast, rand((5,5)) fails, and that is what breaks consistency. > > Remember, "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" > (Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882), adopted without attribution as a > section heading in PEP 8 <http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008>). A "little mind" is an accurate description of myself in the numpy field. But I believe that in order to become a success, numpy must take into account the needs of little minds as well. > > I think the current situation strikes the right balance between > convenience and consistency. I was arguing that it's inconvenient exactly because it's inconsistent, so I don't see the tradeoff here. (Given that I'm fairly indifferent between one or two pairs of parentheses.) In any case I promise to shut up about this when 1.0(beta) is out, but I think Alan is right that under the status quo there will be a constant stream of the same newbie question that I asked. cheers, Sven 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
