Message363471
This is where you're not getting traction:
"A randrange() function should a priori not be so strongly tied to the binary base."
That's a raw assertion. _Why_ shouldn't it be? "Because I keep saying so" isn't changing minds ;-)
I understand you're looking at exact equality of t-tuples. I wasn't in my example: I was looking at the individual values, one pair at a time. The extreme correlation is dead obvious by eyeball either way, despite that the only test you seem to have in mind (exact equality of t-tuples) is blind to it. Why is that test so important? Why does it not matter that, e.g., number of inversions, number of runs, distribution of run-lengths (etc) remain highly correlated regardless?
Nobody else has had a problem with this, and it remains unclear why you do: what's your objection to Mark's suggestions (use different seeds, or _don't_ reset the seed)? That's the obvious approach: use the facilities in straightforward ways.
In any case, we can't/won't make changes on a whim. As far as possible, we strive to keep results bit-for-bit identical across releases for people who save/set seeds, hoping to get reproducible results. Changing the results from any random module function requires strong justification.
So far, I don't see that here. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2020-03-06 01:54:00 | tim.peters | set | recipients:
+ tim.peters, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, jfbu |
2020-03-06 01:54:00 | tim.peters | set | messageid: <1583459640.7.0.523251123183.issue39867@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2020-03-06 01:54:00 | tim.peters | link | issue39867 messages |
2020-03-06 01:54:00 | tim.peters | create | |
|