On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 13:36 -0400, Joseph Fox-Rabinovitz wrote: > Would it break backwards compatibility to add the input as a return > value to np.random.shuffle? I doubt anyone out there is relying on > the None return value. >
Well, python discourages this IIRC, and opts to not do these things for in place functions (see random package specifically). Numpy breaks this in a few places, but that is mostly because we have the out argument as an optional input argument. As is, it is a nice way of making people not write: new = np.random.shuffle(old) and think old won't change. So I think we should probably just stick with the python/Guido van Rossum ideals, or did those change? - Sebastian > The change is trivial, and allows shuffling a new array in one line > instead of two: > > x = np.random.shuffle(np.array(some_junk)) > > I've implemented the change in PR#10893. > > Regards, > > - Joe > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
