On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 4:35 PM Eric Wieser <wieser.eric+nu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You make a bunch of good points refuting reproducible research as an > argument for not changing the random number streams. > > However, there’s a second use-case you don’t address - unit tests. For > better or worse, downstream, or even our own > <https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/c4813a9/numpy/core/tests/test_multiarray.py#L5093-L5108>, > unit tests use a seeded random number generator as a shorthand to produce > some arbirary array, and then hard-code the expected output in their tests. > Breaking stream compatibility will break these tests. > By the way, the reason that I didn't mention this use case as a motivation in the Status Quo section because, as I reviewed my mail archive, this wasn't actually a motivating use case for the policy. It's certainly a use case that developed once we did make these (*cough*extravagant*cough*) guarantees, though, as people started to rely on it, and I hope that my StableRandom proposal addresses it to your satisfaction. I could add some more details about that history if you think it would be useful. -- Robert Kern
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
