Message289733
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
davin, njs, pitrou, sbt, yselivanov |
| Date |
2017年03月16日.21:00:37 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1489698037.99.0.972646319995.issue29828@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
The use case is quite clear here. The specific need to re-seed the Numpy PRNG has already come up in two different projects I work on: Numba and Dask. I wouldn't be surprised if other libraries have similar needs.
If you want a reproducible RNG sequence, you should actually use a specific, explicit seed (and possibly instantiate a dedicated random state instead of using the default one). When not using an explicit seed, people expect different random numbers regardless of whether a function is executed in one or several processes.
Note that multiprocessing *already* re-seeds the stdlib PRNG after fork, so re-seeding the Numpy PRNG is consistent with current behaviour.
About it being rarely used: the aim is not use by application developers but by library authors; e.g. Numpy itself could register the re-seeding callback, which would free users from doing it themselves. It doesn't have to be used a lot to be useful. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2017年03月16日 21:00:38 | pitrou | set | recipients:
+ pitrou, njs, sbt, yselivanov, davin |
| 2017年03月16日 21:00:37 | pitrou | set | messageid: <1489698037.99.0.972646319995.issue29828@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2017年03月16日 21:00:37 | pitrou | link | issue29828 messages |
| 2017年03月16日 21:00:37 | pitrou | create |
|