Message246642
| Author | mark.dickinson |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Serge Anuchin, mark.dickinson, pitrou, r.david.murray, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, skrah, steven.daprano, tim.peters, vstinner |
| Date | 2015-07-12.09:05:49 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1436691949.22.0.168511901917.issue24567@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Serhiy: there's already a small bias inherent in using `int(random() * n)`, regardless of double rounding, since in general `random()` gives 2**53 equally likely (modulo deficiencies in the source generator) outcomes and `n` need not be a divisor of `2**53`. I don't think the double rounding is going to make that bias noticeably worse. See issue 23974, which was resolved as "wont fix". |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2015-07-12 09:05:49 | mark.dickinson | set | recipients: + mark.dickinson, tim.peters, rhettinger, pitrou, vstinner, steven.daprano, r.david.murray, skrah, serhiy.storchaka, Serge Anuchin |
| 2015-07-12 09:05:49 | mark.dickinson | set | messageid: <1436691949.22.0.168511901917.issue24567@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2015-07-12 09:05:49 | mark.dickinson | link | issue24567 messages |
| 2015-07-12 09:05:49 | mark.dickinson | create | |