[Numpy-discussion] rand argument question

[Alan G Isaac]

>> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006, Robert Kern apparently wrote: 
>>> Changing the API of rand() and randn() doesn't solve any 
>>> problem. Removing them might.


> Alan G Isaac wrote: 
>> I think this is too blunt an argument.  For example, 
>> use of the old interface might issue a deprecation warning. 
>> This would make it very likely that all new code use the new 
>> interface. 


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.)

Cheers,
Alan

PS I'll shut up about this now.