Tim Peters added the comment: I agree closing was appropriate at this time. I quite like PCG, but as Raymond said it's more a template for creating PRNGs than a specific generator. So even if a compelling case could be made, there's still a long way to having specific code in mind.
In the Python world, the only non-trivial (i.e., not just a pure-Python toy demo program) PCG work I'm aware of is Robert Kern's (numpy's PRNG specialist) experiment with wrapping it: https://github.com/rkern/pcg-python But it hasn't been touched since late 2015. It's also a bit concerning that Prof. O'Neill hasn't posted to her PCG blog in over 2 years: http://www.pcg-random.org/blog/ I'm not concerned that the paper still hasn't been published - papers can sit a loooong time in review queues, and I'm afraid her paper is far too down-to-earth, readable, entertaining, and long for the TOMS editors' tastes <0.3 wink>. ---------- nosy: +tim.peters _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue30880> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
