Message367203
| Author |
tim.peters |
| Recipients |
mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, tim.peters, vstinner |
| Date |
2020年04月24日.17:13:23 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1587748404.87.0.11112973286.issue40346@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Mark, you don't count ;-) Neither do I. Of course I've subclassed Random too, to experiment with other base generators (including PCG variants). But they're throwaways, and I don't care that it can require staring at the code to make as many changes as needed. Developers _of_ Python don't need things to be trivial to make quick progress.
So I remain where I was: +0, provided there are no notable runtime regressions. Nice to have (hence "+"), but don't really care if it never happens (hence "0").
As to what numpy does, I'm always in favor of following their lead when possible and Pythonic. |
|