From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Oct 7 02:34:00 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA27989 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 02:34:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eel.dataplex.net (eel.dataplex.net [208.2.87.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA27980 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 02:33:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod [208.2.87.4]) by eel.dataplex.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA24850; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 04:31:30 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: rkw@eel.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199610070056.RAA13128@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199610052204.CAA07197@nagual.ru> from "=?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?=" at Oct 6, 96 02:04:17 am Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 04:28:30 -0500 To: Terry Lambert From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: I plan to change random() for -current (was Re: rand() and random()) Cc: ache@nagual.ru, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> > There is a historical dependence of much physics code on the >> > repeatability of identical seeding for the linear congruential >> > generator >I respectfully suggest that you should consider packing around your >own random number generator with the code that needs the different >distribution, rather than munging the existing code. Historical >behaviour of pseudo-random library services is a topic requiring a >*lot* of care before changes are introduced. I really haven't seen >what I would consider enough thought or discussion to merit a change. I am in TOTAL agreement with Terry's position. If YOU want a different function, by all means write one, test it, and use it. However, DO NOT change the existing functions. PERIOD. This discussion should probably be made in a Numerical Analysis arena. It is not a topic of debate for OS people.