On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:36:16 -0400
Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 10:30 AM Paul Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2024-06-21 at 09:11 -0400, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> > > i hope, Paul approves adding tests of this nature.
> >
> > I have no problems with adding unit tests, as
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 10:30 AM Paul Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2024-06-21 at 09:11 -0400, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> > i hope, Paul approves adding tests of this nature.
>
> I have no problems with adding unit tests, as long as we can find a way
> to integrate it into the test suite in a
On Fri, 2024-06-21 at 09:11 -0400, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> i hope, Paul approves adding tests of this nature.
I have no problems with adding unit tests, as long as we can find a way
to integrate it into the test suite in a reasonable way.
But this particular thing doesn't really feel like a
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 5:37 PM Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> Glancing at tests/ all the tests exercise user-facing `make` API. What
> would be the best way to validate probabilities?
For this type of code like shuffle, i like testing the function itself,
directly. Just calling the function in a
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 10:55:53 -0400
Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 5:38 PM Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> > After the change probabilities are not as biased:
> >
> > 0 1 2 3
> > _ _ _ _
> > 0 | 24.99 24.99 25.01 25.01
> > 1
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 5:38 PM Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> After the change probabilities are not as biased:
>
> 0 1 2 3
> _ _ _ _
> 0 | 24.99 24.99 25.01 25.01
> 1 | 24.99 25.04 24.99 24.99
> 2 | 25.01 25.00 25.00 24.99
> 3 | 25.01
From: Sergei Trofimovich
Artem Klimov noticed that current shuffle implementation suffers from
probability bias due to a typical bug in the shuffling implementation.
When we consider already shuffled element we slightly bias their
propability.
