On 3/14/07, Timothy Hochberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 3/14/07, Sebastian Haase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 ;-) > > I don't know what the problem, if any, is with rand and randn, but I can > tell you what the problem with stuffing stuff in the main namespace is: it's > allready much too crowded, which makes it difficult to find functions when > you need them. Have you tried dir(numpy) recently?
Hey Tim, yes, I have done this many times -- just to scare myself .... ;-) As I see it most of them are "historical problems" -- and we will likely be stuck with them forever -- since the 1.0 commitment apparently doesn't even allow to make numpy.resize and array.resize to fill in the same way [[ one adds 0s, the other repeats the array ]] . (Especially I'm thinking of hanning and hamming and other things I understand even less ...) The only argument here, was that one or two [ :-) ] random functions [ how about rand() and randn() ?] would be nice to have "as a shortcut".... Yes, I have some modules myself, containing a bunch of home-made things, that I call "useful". I understand the argument here was to get the "best possible" "common ground". I don't have (very) strong feelings about this. -Sebastian _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
