➜

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 tim.peters
Recipients jfbu, mark.dickinson, rhettinger, tim.peters
Date 2020-03-05.22:25:06
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1583447106.47.0.3878471367.issue39867@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content 
Sorry, I don't see "a problem" here either.  Rounding instead can change the precise nature of the correlations if you insist on starting from the same seed, but it hardly seems a real improvement; e.g.,

>>> random.seed(12)
>>> [round(random.random() * 100) for i in range(10)]
[47, 66, 67, 14, 1, 37, 27, 81, 69, 60]
>>> random.seed(12)
>>> [round(random.random() * 101) for i in range(10)]
[48, 66, 67, 14, 1, 38, 28, 82, 70, 61]

That is, while there are fewer identical values, the correlation is nevertheless obvious and extreme.  Not only not a bug, it's not even surprising ;-)
History
Date User Action Args
2020-03-05 22:25:06tim.peterssetrecipients: + tim.peters, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, jfbu
2020-03-05 22:25:06tim.peterssetmessageid: <1583447106.47.0.3878471367.issue39867@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2020-03-05 22:25:06tim.peterslinkissue39867 messages
2020-03-05 22:25:06tim.peterscreate