Message108101
| Author | mark.dickinson |
|---|---|
| Recipients | mark.dickinson, rhettinger |
| Date | 2010-06-18.12:22:11 |
| SpamBayes Score | 2.4642835e-05 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1276863732.9.0.202368142527.issue9025@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Here's an example patch that removes any bias from randrange(n) (except for bias resulting from the imperfectness of the core MT generator). I added a small private method to Modules/_randommodule.c to aid the computation. This only fixes one instance of int(random() * n) in the Lib/random.py source; the other instances should be modified accordingly. With this patch, randrange is a touch faster than before (20-30% speedup) for small arguments. Is this worth pursuing? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2010-06-18 12:22:12 | mark.dickinson | set | recipients: + mark.dickinson, rhettinger |
| 2010-06-18 12:22:12 | mark.dickinson | set | messageid: <1276863732.9.0.202368142527.issue9025@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010-06-18 12:22:11 | mark.dickinson | link | issue9025 messages |
| 2010-06-18 12:22:11 | mark.dickinson | create | |