[Skip Montanaro] >>> I was adding __all__ to the random module and I noticed this very >>> unpythonic example in the module docstring: >>> >>> >>> g = Random(42) # arbitrary >>> >>> g.random() >>> 0.25420336316883324 >>> >>> g.jumpahead(6953607871644L - 1) # move *back* one >>> >>> g.random() >>> 0.25420336316883324 [Tim] >> Did you miss the sentence preceding the example, starting "Just >> for fun"? [Guido] > In that vein, the example isn't compatible with doctest, is it? I'm not sure what you're asking. The example *works* under doctest, although random.py is not a doctest'ed module (it has an "eyeball test" at the end, and you have to be an expert to guess whether or not "it worked" from staring at the output -- not my doing, and way non-trivial to automate). So it's compatible in the "it works" sense, although it's vulnerable to x-platform fp output vagaries in the last few bits. If random.py ever gets doctest'ed, I'll fix that. Or maybe you're saying that a "just for fun" example doesn't need to be accurate? I'd disagree with that, but am not sure that's what you're saying, so won't disagree just yet <wink>.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4