>> > Well, I was trying to emphasize that it was, for pretty much all >> > intents >> > and purposes, infinite. >> >> Nope-nope-nope you're wrong :-)~ > > > The way I understood the 'period' of the random function was that after x > calls to the function, you would start getting the same pattern of results > as you did to begin with, in _the same running process_ of a program. > This is a separate situation from having the clock be exactly the same and > getting the same random values on program start - we already knew that > would > happen, because the seed hadn't changed. > Unless I understand the period wrong, but I don't think so.
No, you understand it just fine. The story was to illustrate the special case. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's the same running process. Two process started within the same second produce the same 'random' results. So, as the story goes, the big boss's computer time is locked, runs for *nearly* an eternity, and at that point the pattern starts repeating. I was just being nit-picky and silly. I told you it was late :-) > as a side note - are you going to enter the September Pyweek? You should! > It's a lot of fun. > -Luke Hmmm.... what's that? I'll google. JS _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
