>> I would also point out that requiring open vs closed intervals (in >> doubles) is already an extremely specialised use case. In terms of >> *sampling the reals*, there is no difference between the intervals >> (a,b) and [a,b], because the endpoints have measure 0, and even with >> double-precision arithmetic, you are going to have to make several >> petabytes of random data before you hit an endpoint... >> > Petabytes ain't what they used to be ;) I remember testing some hardware > which, due to grounding/timing issues would occasionally goof up a readable > register. The hardware designers never saw it because they didn't test for > hours and days at high data rates. But it was there, and it would show up > in the data. Measure zero is about as real as real numbers... > > Chuck
Actually, your point is well taken and I am quite mistaken. If you pick some values like uniform(low, low * (1+2**-52)) then you can hit your endpoints pretty easily. I am out of practice making pathological tests for double precision arithmetic. I guess my suggestion would be to add the deprecation warning and change the docstring to warn that the interval is not guaranteed to be right-open. Peter _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
