This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author rhettinger
Recipients christian.heimes, jcea, rhettinger, vstinner
Date 2013-07-07.03:26:12
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1373167572.98.0.195755044338.issue18386@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
The bar is rather high for changing the current algorithm which is well studied, has a long period, and is reasonably fast.  I do not recommend jumping straight into making a patch before we get agreement that we really want another PRNG when the current one is stable, well-studied, performant, and has been working well for its intended purpose.

Note, we guarantee that the current method will always be available, so this would be just another option.

If we were to add another generator, I prefer that we add one with some completely different characteristics (such as being cryptographically strong).  I don't want to take the default generator and periodically switch it out with the "flavor of the month" (people are always coming up with more PRNGs that make various trade-offs between speed, size of stored state, period, etc).
History
Date User Action Args
2013-07-07 03:26:13rhettingersetrecipients: + rhettinger, jcea, vstinner, christian.heimes
2013-07-07 03:26:12rhettingersetmessageid: <1373167572.98.0.195755044338.issue18386@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-07-07 03:26:12rhettingerlinkissue18386 messages
2013-07-07 03:26:12rhettingercreate