The comment says: "If they are not these values (accounting for 
precision of printing)..."

So it looks like the writer of the comment was allowing for just what 
occurred for you, the precision to which the numbers was printed having 
changed. It looks like there was a change made to 
Float>>absPrintOn:base: in 2010 (well after the Random test was written) 
that may have led to this difference.

Cheers,
Bob

On 3/3/12 3:43 AM, ??? wrote:
> Hello.
> I have a question.
> I tested Random class>>theItsCompletelyBrokenTest to test my system.
> The comment of the method says that my system would be horrible if the 
> result is not these values:
> #(0.149243269650845 0.331633021743797 0.75619644800024 
> 0.393701540023881 0.941783181364547 0.549929193942775 
> 0.659962596213428 0.991354559078512 0.696074432551896 0.922987899707159)
> but my result was more precious:
> #(0.1492432696508445 0.331633021743797 0.756196448000239 
> 0.3937015400238808 0.941783181364547 0.549929193942775 
> 0.659962596213428 0.991354559078512 0.696074432551895 0.922987899707159)
> Is it because my system has errors or the comment is obsolete or 
> incorrect?
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20120303/46015440/attachment.htm