On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Alan G Isaac <alan.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/24/2015 8:47 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > Values only change if you leave out the call to seed() > > > OK, but this claim seems to conflict with the following language: > "the global RandomState object should use the latest implementation of the > methods". > I take it that this is what Nathan meant by > "I think this is just a bug in the description of the proposal here, not > in the proposal itself". > > So, is the correct phrasing > "the global RandomState object should use the latest implementation of the > methods, unless explicitly seeded"? > that's how I understand it. I don't see any problems with the clarified proposal for the use cases that I know of. Can we choose the version also for the global random state, for example to fix both version and seed in unit tests, with version > 0? BTW: I would expect that bug fixes are still exempt from backwards compatibility. fixing #5851 should be independent of the version, (without having looked at the issue) (If you need to replicate bugs, then use an old version of a package.) Josef > > Thanks, > Alan > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
