Recently, Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> said: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 01:20:07PM -0700, Jack Jansen wrote: > > > The test used int(time.time()) to get a random number, but this doesn't > > work on the mac (where times are bigger than ints). Changed to > > int(time.time()%1000000). > > Doesn't int(time.time()%sys.maxint) make more sense ? At least you won't be > degrading the sequentiality of this particularly unrandom random number on > platforms where ints really are big enough to hold times :) I think the last sentence should be "... platforms where time before 1970 doesn't exist so they can fit it in a measly 32 bits":-) But anyway: I haven't a clue whether the sequentiality is important, it doesn't really seem to be from a quick glance. If you want to fix it: allez votre corridor. -- Jack Jansen | ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++ Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com | ++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++ www.oratrix.nl/~jack | see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm
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