Your statement is a little self-contradictory, but in any case, you shouldn't worry about random_integers getting removed from the code-base. However, it has been deprecated in favor of randint.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also fwiw, I think the 0-based, half-open interval is one of the best > features of Python indexing and yes, I do use random integers to index into > my arrays and would not appreciate having to litter my code with "-1" > everywhere. > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Alan Isaac <alan.is...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2/17/2016 3:42 PM, Robert Kern wrote: >> >>> random.randint() was the one big exception, and it was considered a >>> mistake for that very reason, soft-deprecated in favor of >>> random.randrange(). >>> >> >> >> randrange also has its detractors: >> https://code.activestate.com/lists/python-dev/138358/ >> and following. >> >> I think if we start citing persistant conventions, the >> persistent convention across *many* languages that the bounds >> provided for a random integer range are inclusive also counts for >> something, especially when the names are essentially shared. >> >> But again, I am just trying to be clear about what is at issue, >> not push for a change. I think citing non-existent standards >> is not helpful. I think the discrepancy between the Python >> standard library and numpy for a function going by a common >> name is harmful. (But then, I teach.) >> >> fwiw, >> >> Alan >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NumPy-Discussion mailing list >> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org >> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
