(original) (raw)
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 4:35 PM Eric Wieser <wieser.eric+numpy@gmail.com> wrote:
You make a bunch of good points refuting reproducible research as an argument for not changing the random number streams.
However, there’s a second use-case you don’t address - unit tests. For better or worse, downstream, or even our own, unit tests use a seeded random number generator as a shorthand to produce some arbirary array, and then hard-code the expected output in their tests. Breaking stream compatibility will break these tests.
By the way, the reason that I didn't mention this use case as a motivation in the Status Quo section because, as I reviewed my mail archive, this wasn't actually a motivating use case for the policy. It's certainly a use case that developed once we did make these (\*cough\*extravagant\*cough\*) guarantees, though, as people started to rely on it, and I hope that my StableRandom proposal addresses it to your satisfaction. I could add some more details about that history if you think it would be useful.
Robert Kern