Message246531
| Author | tim.peters |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Serge Anuchin, mark.dickinson, pitrou, r.david.murray, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, skrah, steven.daprano, tim.peters, vstinner |
| Date | 2015-07-09.23:42:22 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1436485342.81.0.84337103251.issue24567@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> It skews the distribution a tiny little bit, ... But it doesn't - that's the point ;-) If double-rounding doesn't occur at all (which appears to be the case on most platforms), absolutely nothing changes (because min(int(random() * N), N-1) == int(random() * N) on such boxes). If double-rounding does occur, double-rounding itself may change results "all over the place", and I haven't tried to analyze what effects that has on the distribution. In the comparative handful of cases where int(random() * N) == N on such boxes, clamping that back to N-1 just yields the same result we would have gotten on a box that didn't do double-rounding. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2015-07-09 23:42:22 | tim.peters | set | recipients: + tim.peters, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, pitrou, vstinner, steven.daprano, r.david.murray, skrah, serhiy.storchaka, Serge Anuchin |
| 2015-07-09 23:42:22 | tim.peters | set | messageid: <1436485342.81.0.84337103251.issue24567@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2015-07-09 23:42:22 | tim.peters | link | issue24567 messages |
| 2015-07-09 23:42:22 | tim.peters | create | |