Add warning for random.random

[Eddy114514]

add warning for random.random() that in python 3 its string representation is longer (~18 digit) than python 2 (~14 digit).

as following:

[ltratt]

Please force push a rebase against master before review.

[Eddy114514]

Please force push a rebase against master before review.

@ltratt , resolved, thanks for pointing out.

[ltratt]

Please squash.

[ltratt]

Hmm, actually, maybe I'm wrong.

Isn't this warning going to be annoying? Even if someone has updated their code, they're still going to get the "change your code" warning AFAICS?

[Eddy114514]

Hmm, actually, maybe I'm wrong.

Isn't this warning going to be annoying? Even if someone has updated their code, they're still going to get the "change your code" warning AFAICS?

@ltratt I think you are right about the warning behavior of my implementation. I think it is generally hard to detect whether user change their code within the warning.

Since the warning is about length of random.random(), maybe I should put warning inside of len() or __str__ method of random.random (if there is one) such that it is less frequent. But I think it still can't detect whether user change their code or not.

[ltratt]

What one would need to do is track the string output by random.random and then see if someone does something "bad" on it (e.g. len). There are various ways one could do this.

For example, @nanjekyejoannah can fill you in on the bstate idea we've long been working towards. A variant of that would work here: one could (say) add a bool to PyStr that is true if the string was produced by random.random. This is pretty heavy-weight, admittedly.

Another way would be to return a "special" string-like object from random and intercept calls to it. I'm not sure how hard that might be.

[Eddy114514]

What one would need to do is track the string output by random.random and then see if someone does something "bad" on it (e.g. len). There are various ways one could do this.

For example, @nanjekyejoannah can fill you in on the bstate idea we've long been working towards. A variant of that would work here: one could (say) add a bool to PyStr that is true if the string was produced by random.random. This is pretty heavy-weight, admittedly.

Another way would be to return a "special" string-like object from random and intercept calls to it. I'm not sure how hard that might be.

@ltratt Thank you for your suggestions on improving my implementation, I will try to work on either ways and figure out which one is more suitable. Thanks again!