..........
presumably randint is doing something different to get its values.
The docs [https://docs.python.org/3/library/random.html#random.randrange]
for randrange have this note:
Changed in version 3.2: randrange() is more sophisticated about producing
equally distributed values. Formerly it used a style like int(random()*n)
which could produce slightly uneven distributions.
Maybe that's the explanation? Unfortunately I don't have an install of
3.0/1 to test against.
Looking in random.py it sesms to be true. Pity no backwards compatibility mode.
I don't actually care about the quality of the ints produced, but I do care
about reproducibility, luckily I think it's feasible to monkey patch the 2.7
method back in.
--
Robin Becker
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
