On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 15:44, Michael McNeil Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 23 Jun 2008, at 1:28 PM, Anne Archibald wrote: > >> 2008/6/23 Michael McNeil Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Thus, one can argue that all examples should also be doctests. This >>> generally makes things a little more ugly, but much less ambiguous. >> >> This is a bit awkward. How do you give an example for a random-number >> generator? Even if you are willing to include a seed in each >> statement, misleading users into thinking it's necessary, the value >> returned for a given seed is not necessarily part of the interface a >> random-number generator agrees to support. > > I agree that this can be awkward sometimes, and should certainly not > be policy, but one can usually get around this. Instead of printing > the result, you can use it, or demonstrate porperties: > > >>> random_array = np.random.rand(3,4) > >>> random_array.shape > (3,4) > >>> random_array.max() < 1 > True > >>> random_array.min() > 0 > True
Yes, this makes it doctestable, but you've destroyed the exampleness. It should be policy *not* to do this. -- 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 _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
