[Python-Dev] a note in random.shuffle.__doc__ ...

[Raymond Hettinger]

Alex Martelli wrote:

>...claims:
>
>Note that for even rather small len(x), the total number of
>permutations of x is larger than the period of most random number
>generators; this implies that "most" permutations of a long
>sequence can never be generated.
>
>Now -- why would the behavior of "most" random number generators be  
>relevant here?  The module's docs claim, for its specific Mersenne  
>Twister generator, a period of 2**19997-1, which is (e.g.) a  
>comfortable  
>130128673800676351960752618754658780303412233749552410245124492452914636 
>028095467780746435724876612802011164778042889281426609505759158196749438 
>742986040468247017174321241233929215223326801091468184945617565998894057 
>859403269022650639413550466514556014961826309062543 times larger than  
>the number of permutations of 2000 items, which doesn't really feel  
>to me like a "rather small len(x)" in this context (what I'm most  
>often shuffling is just a pack of cards -- len(x)==52 -- for example).
>
>I suspect that the note is just a fossil from a time when the default  
>random number generator was Whichman-Hill, with a much shorter  
>period.  Should this note just be removed, or instead somehow  
>reworded to point out that this is not in fact a problem for the  
>module's current default random number generator?  Opinions welcome!
>  
>
I think the note is still useful, but the "rather small" wording
should be replaced by something most precise (such as the
value of n=len(x) where n! > 2**19997).



Raymond