Alan G Isaac wrote:
I argue that rand and randn should accept a tuple as the first argument. Whether the old behavior is also allowed, I have no opinion. But the numpy-consistent behavior should definitely be allowed. I perhaps wrongly understood Robert to argue that the current behavior of rand and randn is not a wart since i. alternative tuple-accepting functions are available and ii. the suprising behavior is documented. This seems quite wrong to me, and I am farily confident that such an argument would not be offered except in defence of legacy code.
i. Yes, you're still misunderstanding my arguments. ii. I'm bloody sick of rehashing it, so I won't be responding further. -- 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