[Numpy-discussion] Code samples in docstrings mistaken as doctests

Robert Kern robert.kern@gmail....
Mon Jun 23 22:57:25 CDT 2008


On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 22:53, Anne Archibald <peridot.faceted@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/6/23 Michael Abshoff <michael.abshoff@googlemail.com>:

>> Correct, but so far Carl has hooked into six out of the many random
>> number generators in the various components of Sage. This way we can set
>> a global seed and also more easily reproduce issues with algorithms
>> where randomness plays a role without being forced to be on the same
>> platform. There are still doctests in Sage where the randomness comes
>> from sources not in randgen (Carl's code), but sooner or later we will
>> get around to all of them.
>
> Doesn't this mean you can't change your implementation of random
> number generators (for example choosing a different implementation of
> generation of normally-distributed random numbers, or replacing the
> Mersenne Twister) without causing countless doctests to fail
> meaninglessly?

It's not that bad. After you've verified that your new code works, you
regenerate the examples. You check in both at the same time.

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
 -- Umberto Eco


More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list