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 09:05:49mark.dickinsonsetrecipients: + mark.dickinson, tim.peters, rhettinger, pitrou, vstinner, steven.daprano, r.david.murray, skrah, serhiy.storchaka, Serge Anuchin
2015-07-12 09:05:49mark.dickinsonsetmessageid: <1436691949.22.0.168511901917.issue24567@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015-07-12 09:05:49mark.dickinsonlinkissue24567 messages
2015-07-12 09:05:49mark.dickinsoncreate