can u pullz?

[btoconnor]

I added a doctest that was missing, converted a few text examples to doctests.

additionally, i also changed your random_string function to utilize os.urandom, which is supposed to be better.

From the python docs (as we discussed some time ago):

Almost all module functions depend on the basic function random(), which generates a random float uniformly in the semi-open range [0.0, 1.0). Python uses the Mersenne Twister as the core generator. It produces 53-bit precision floats and has a period of 2**19937-1. The underlying implementation in C is both fast and threadsafe. The Mersenne Twister is one of the most extensively tested random number generators in existence. However, being completely deterministic, it is not suitable for all purposes, and is completely unsuitable for cryptographic purposes.

Anyway, pull if you wish.

[shazow]

Please split the pull request into a separate one for each topic, so I can accept them individual or ask for changes when necessary.

Some feedback:

1. I don't want to accept your changes to random_string for two reasons: It breaks for alphabets bigger than 255 and it's more complicated and not as clear as the original version which goes against the philosophy of the library (namely "We value simplicity and elegance over robustness and optimization.").
2. I appreciate the doctests fixes, please include them in a separate pull request. Any particular reason for changing "Example" to "For example"? Is there some sort of standard for this? If not, I'd prefer to leave it as-is to avoid bouncing back and forth.
3. The pop_many docstring is good, thank you. Please include it as a separate pull request. :)

[btoconnor]

I have no idea how to split up commits for separate pull changes, but I guess I'll have to figure it out. This is my first adventure on github.

1. That's fine. I'm going to keep it in mine - that's what I use in my lib.
2. Actually, I took the 'For Example' bit from one of the existing doctests, and kept it for consistency. If you want consistency - which would you like ? 'Example', or 'For Example'?
3. Will do, as soon as I figure out how to.

[shazow]

Let's do Example, less writing. :P

I think to split them up, you need to make a separate upstream branch (based
on a revision that exists in the origin repo) for every changeset and
request merges with said branches.

Let me know if you figure it out.

Also re 1. You're welcome to add a note in the docstring in the end that the
randomness could be improved by using os.urandom.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 8:57 PM, btoconnor <
reply@reply.github.com>wrote:

I have no idea how to split up commits for separate pull changes, but I
guess I'll have to figure it out. This is my first adventure on github.

1. That's fine. I'm going to keep it in mine - that's what I use in my
   lib.
2. Actually, I took the 'For Example' bit from one of the existing
   doctests, and kept it for consistency. If you want consistency - which
   would you like ? 'Example', or 'For Example'?
3. Will do, as soon as I figure out how to.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#2 (comment)