Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> Mike Brown wrote:
> > I have questions about thread safety in the 'random' module.
> >
> > When using the random.Random class (be it Mersenne Twister or Wichmann-Hill
> > based), is it sufficiently thread-safe (preserving entropy and guarding
> > against attack) to just h
> > Thread-safety has nothing to do with preserving entropy or guarding
> > against attack. All of the entropy in an MT sequence is contained in
> > the seed (upto 624 bytes) and that entropy is preserved through all
> > subsequent calls.
>
> I think the concern is that there can be a thread switc
"Raymond Hettinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thread-safety has nothing to do with preserving entropy or guarding
> against attack. All of the entropy in an MT sequence is contained in
> the seed (upto 624 bytes) and that entropy is preserved through all
> subsequent calls.
I think the concer
Mike Brown wrote:
> I have questions about thread safety in the 'random' module.
>
> When using the random.Random class (be it Mersenne Twister or Wichmann-Hill
> based), is it sufficiently thread-safe (preserving entropy and guarding
> against attack) to just have each thread work with its own ran
I have questions about thread safety in the 'random' module.
When using the random.Random class (be it Mersenne Twister or Wichmann-Hill
based), is it sufficiently thread-safe (preserving entropy and guarding
against attack) to just have each thread work with its own random.Random
instance? Or
