[issue30880] PCG random number generator

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 P

[issue30880] PCG random number generator

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: FWIW, the previous discussions on the MersenneTwister have all resulted in a decision to stick with it. The PCG family of PRNG is relatively new. IIRC, the paper for it was never accepted for publication and some of its bolder claims haven't been proven.

[issue30880] PCG random number generator

Evelyn Mitchell added the comment: Mark, thanks for the background links. My suggestion is much more constrained than the territory covered by those links. -- ___ Python tracker __

[issue30880] PCG random number generator

Mark Dickinson added the comment: Some previous discussions: "Time for a change of random number generator": https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-February/143268.html "Should our default random number generator be secure?": (warning: long) https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-

[issue30880] PCG random number generator

Changes by Serhiy Storchaka : -- components: +Extension Modules nosy: +mark.dickinson, rhettinger versions: +Python 3.7 ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue30880] PCG random number generator

New submission from Evelyn Mitchell: John Cook tested the quality of the PCG Random Number generator (http://www.pcg-random.org/index.html) and it appears to have good performance. His report is at: https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2017/07/07/testing-the-pcg-random-number-generator/ This is a