Tim Peters <t...@python.org> added the comment:
Python is a general-purpose language, and as such I believe it's inappropriate for it to be "a leader" in adopting new PRNGs. That's for area specialists to pioneer. If NumPy switched, that is a good reason to evaluate this again. But for backward compatibility we'd probably still need to support the current Twister anyway (for programs that set the seed, we try to keep results bit-for-bit reproducible across releases). Note that Python didn't switch _to_ the Twister before it was, in effect, a de facto standard across many scientific libraries. Something not noted in the earlier report: TOMS rejected the PCG paper, so it will probably never be published. I don't much care, but those who do care about peer-reviewed publication may see that as a deal killer. ---------- nosy: +tim.peters _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue38767> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
