Hi, Please remind me what's wrong with pylab's rand and randn ! I just learned about their existence recently and thought they seem quite handy and should go directly into (the top-level of) numpy. Functions that have the same name and do the same thing don't conflict either ;-)
-Sebastian On 3/12/07, Rob Hetland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I, for one, would also like this. Perhaps it should not be called > 'rand', however, as that conflicts with the pylab rand. (numpy load > and pylab load also conflict -- probably the only reason I ever use > import pylab as pl in my scripts). 'random' is already taken by the > whole package... What does this leave that is still sensible? > > -r > > On Mar 9, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Bill Baxter wrote: > > > Has enough time passed with no top level random function that we can > > now put one back in? > > If I recall, the former top level rand() was basically removed because > > it didn't adhere to the "shapes are always tuples" convention. > > > > Has enough time passed now that we can put something like it back in > > the top level, in tuple-taking form? > > > > I think this is a function people use pretty frequently when writing > > quick tests. > > And numpy.random.random_sample seems a rather long and not so obvious > > name for something that is used relatively frequently. > > > > --bb _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion