Sasha schrieb:
Consistency is already lost because 1d case allows both ones(5) and ones([5]) (and even ones((5,)) if anyone can tolerate that abomination). I don't think those who argue for sequence only are willing to require ones([5]).
Imho consistency is not lost there precisely because one can use ones((5)) if one is so inclined. So the double-parentheses habit (or call it tuple-habit if you like) goes through. In contrast, rand((5,5)) fails, and that is what breaks consistency.
Remember, "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" (Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882), adopted without attribution as a section heading in PEP 8 <http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008>).
A "little mind" is an accurate description of myself in the numpy field. But I believe that in order to become a success, numpy must take into account the needs of little minds as well.
I think the current situation strikes the right balance between convenience and consistency.
I was arguing that it's inconvenient exactly because it's inconsistent, so I don't see the tradeoff here. (Given that I'm fairly indifferent between one or two pairs of parentheses.) In any case I promise to shut up about this when 1.0(beta) is out, but I think Alan is right that under the status quo there will be a constant stream of the same newbie question that I asked. cheers, Sven