Re: [Numpy-discussion] rand argument question

[Robert K. <rob...@gm...>]

Alan G Isaac wrote:

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

I'll check in a change to the docstring later today.

-- 
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