Change range behavior to conform with random.randint()#25
Open
rev138 wants to merge 1 commit intolmacken:developfrom
Open
Change range behavior to conform with random.randint()#25rev138 wants to merge 1 commit intolmacken:developfrom
rev138 wants to merge 1 commit intolmacken:developfrom
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The practical behavior of
quantumrandom.randint(min, max)is that it returns numbers in the range of min..(max - 1). This means it works like the python built-inrange()function, but it deviates from the behavior ofrandom.randint()which I assume this module's method is intended to replicate. You can see this discrepancy in action with the following code snippet:qrandwill only ever print 0, whilerandwill print either 0 or 1.Implementing this PR will probably break existing scripts that use this module, but the confusion between the
randomandquantumrandomversions of the method will no doubt lead to unintentional errors due to bad assumptions. If the behavior isn't changed, I think the documentation should at least mention this issue explicitly.