I was adding __all__ to the random module and I noticed this very unpythonic example in the module docstring:
>>> g = Random(42) # arbitrary >>> g.random() 0.25420336316883324 >>> g.jumpahead(6953607871644L - 1) # move *back* one >>> g.random() 0.25420336316883324
Did you miss the sentence preceding the example, starting "Just for fun"?
In that vein, the example isn't compatible with doctest, is it?
I'm not sure what you're asking. The example *works* under doctest, although random.py is not a doctest'ed module (it has an "eyeball test" at the end, and you have to be an expert to guess whether or not "it worked" from staring at the output -- not my doing, and way non-trivial to automate).
So it's compatible in the "it works" sense, although it's vulnerable to x-platform fp output vagaries in the last few bits. If random.py ever gets doctest'ed, I'll fix that.
Or maybe you're saying that a "just for fun" example doesn't need to be accurate? I'd disagree with that, but am not sure that's what you're saying, so won't disagree just yet <wink>.