Message108138
| Author | mark.dickinson |
|---|---|
| Recipients | belopolsky, mark.dickinson, rhettinger, vstinner |
| Date | 2010-06-18.20:43:08 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.006073816 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1276893790.36.0.838429915998.issue9025@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Hmm. I hadn't considered the reproducibility problem. Does the module aim for reproducibility across all platforms *and* all versions of Python? Or just one of those? For small n, I think the patched version of randrange(n) produces the same sequence as before with very high probability, but not with certainty. Since that sounds like a recipe for hard-to-find bugs, it might be better to deliberately perturb the outputs somehow so that the sequence is obviously different from before, rather than subtly different. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2010-06-18 20:43:10 | mark.dickinson | set | recipients: + mark.dickinson, rhettinger, belopolsky, vstinner |
| 2010-06-18 20:43:10 | mark.dickinson | set | messageid: <1276893790.36.0.838429915998.issue9025@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010-06-18 20:43:09 | mark.dickinson | link | issue9025 messages |
| 2010-06-18 20:43:08 | mark.dickinson | create | |