Omit tiebreak section if tiebreaks don't come up

[lordmauve]

It would shorten the output if the randomised tiebreak order section was omitted unless that specific case comes up.

[larryhastings]

Well, it's a teeny bit complicated. Right now the library just prints out what it's doing as it does it, and the randomized tiebreaker order is calculated (and therefore printed) before it begins computing the election. Maybe it sounds dumb, but, I want to do that before computing the election, so that no part of computing the election can be said to have any effect on the randomized tiebreaker order. On the other hand, this means I don't know whether or not we'll hit a tiebreaker at the time I compute the randomized tiebreaker order.

If I suppress printing the randomized tiebreaker order until such time as we actually need a tiebreaker, but I still wanted to print it in order of when it was done, I'd have to start buffering up output, which sounds complicated.

The cheap solution would be to print the randomized tiebreaker order section in the middle of the output, say, just before printing the results of the tiebreaker. Rest assured, election nerds, I'd still compute it in advance, I just wouldn't print it out unless we actually hit a tiebreaker.

I could make that a selectable feature. Does that work for you?

[larryhastings]

I changed the meaning of verbosity. Now, at level 1, the permuted tiebreaker doesn't anything at initialization time. Instead, it prints the same information during the tiebreaker round. If verbosity is 2 or higher it prints at initialization time like it used to.

[larryhastings]

Fixed in a395164, released as 2.1.