Mention hash randomization in random lib bpo-40325

[kwikwag]

https://bugs.python.org/issue40325

https://bugs.python.org/issue40325

[the-knights-who-say-ni]

Hello, and thanks for your contribution!

I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept this contribution by verifying everyone involved has signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA).

Recognized GitHub username

We couldn't find a bugs.python.org (b.p.o) account corresponding to the following GitHub usernames:

@kwikwag

This might be simply due to a missing "GitHub Name" entry in one's b.p.o account settings. This is necessary for legal reasons before we can look at this contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue.

You can check yourself to see if the CLA has been received.

Thanks again for the contribution, we look forward to reviewing it!

[rhettinger]

Thanks for the patch, but I'm going to decline. Hash randomization has system wide effects and nothing that are specific to the random() module. The only relation is that they share the word "random" :-)

[rhettinger]

Feel free to suggest a general FAQ entry on hash randomization, noting that any sequence formed by a list of a set of strings will be in non-deterministic order.

[kwikwag]

Thanks for the patch, but I'm going to decline. Hash randomization has system wide effects and nothing that are specific to the random() module. The only relation is that they share the word "random" :-)

Hey, thanks for the comment. While a FAQ entry is indeed relevant, I think that so is a mention in random - a user like me expected deterministic behavior when using random.seed(), didn't get such a behavior, and consulted the docs for random for some insight. Users should be aware that there are other sources of randomness in otherwise deterministic code -- the use of the same word, random, is not happenstance. These are two sources (and the only sources?) of pseudo-randomness built into Python. Hash randomization is obligatory, while random is opt-in. It makes sense to me that docs for an opt-in approach would mention the obligatory one(s).