Re: [Numpy-discussion] rand argument question

[Alan G I. <ai...@am...>]

>> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006, Robert Kern apparently wrote:=20
>>> Changing the API of rand() and randn() doesn't solve any=20
>>> problem. Removing them might.


> Alan G Isaac wrote:=20
>> I think this is too blunt an argument.  For example,=20
>> use of the old interface might issue a deprecation warning.=20
>> This would make it very likely that all new code use the new=20
>> interface.=20


On Fri, 02 Jun 2006, Robert Kern apparently wrote:=20
> My point is that there is no need to change rand() and randn() to the "ne=
w"=20
> interface. The "new" interface is already there: random.random() and=20
> random.standard_normal().=20


Yes of course; that has always been your point.
In an earlier post, I indicated that this is your usual response.

What your point does not addres:
the question about rand and randn keeps cropping up on this list.

My point is:
numpy should take a step so that this question goes away,
rather than maintain the status quo and see it crop up continually.
(I.e., its recurrence should be understood to signal a problem.)

Cheers,
Alan

PS I'll shut up about this now.