Tim Peters added the comment:
[Raymond]
> I can't say that I feel good about making everyone pay
> a price for a problem that almost no one ever has.
As far as I know, nobody has ever had the problem. But if we know a bug
exists, I think it's at best highly dubious to wait for a poor user to get
bitten by it. Our bugs aren't their fault, and we have no idea in advance how
much our bugs may cost them.
Note that there's no need to change anything on boxes without double-rounding,
and those appear to be the majority of platforms now, and "should" eventually
become all platforms as people migrate to 64-bit platforms. So, e.g.,
if double_rounding_happens_on_this_box:
def choice(...):
# fiddled code
else:
def choice(...):
# current code just indented a level
Then most platforms pay nothing beyond a single import-time test. Note that
there's already code to detect double-rounding in test_math.py, but in that
context not to _fix_ a problem but to ignore fsum() tests that fail in its
presence.
And just to be annoying ;-) , here's another timing variation:
i = int(random() * n)
return seq[i - (i == n)]
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue24567>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
