[Python-ideas] About adding a new iteratormethodcalled "shuffled"
rhamph at gmail.com
Fri Mar 27 19:08:46 CET 2009
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
> Adam Olsen writes:
> > "Not broken for small lists" implies it IS broken for large lists.
> You're being contentious. It logically implies no such thing, nor is
> it idiomatically an implication among consenting adults. And in any
> case, the phrasing I recommended is "guaranteed to have uniform
> distribution of shuffles up to N". The implication of "no guarantee"
> is "have a mechanic inspect it before you buy", not "this is a lemon".
We'll have to agree to disagree there.
The irony is that we only seed with 128 bits, so rather than 2**19937
combinations, there's just 2**128. That drops our "safe" list size
down to 34. Weee!
Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus
More information about the Python-ideas