Guido van Rossum
Tue, 09 Apr 2002 20:53:02 -0400
> > I can certainly see the use of providing a given random algorithm for
> > those who want stability, while at the same time letting the random
> > module migrate to a stronger algorithm for the benefit for humanity.
> > But then again, Tim might have a good reason why that's a bad idea. I
> > don't know.
> It's a good idea, but what was a bad idea was continuing to call the
> bad seed method plain "seed()". I toyed with adding a "version
> number" argument to seed, and that may still be a good idea; the
> random.py getstate() does *save* a version number, so that it's
> possible to change default methods entirely someday yet unpickle old
> random instances (2.1 or later) and get back the same generator you
> thought you had pickled. I ran out of time before I ran out of
> ideas, though <wink>.
I'll leave it to the OP to continue this thread.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)