Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 05:32:46 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: I plan to change random() for -current (was Re: rand() and random()) Message-ID: <l03010502ae7e89c5d209@[208.2.87.4]> In-Reply-To: <2689.844682008@time.cdrom.com> References: Your message of "Mon, 07 Oct 1996 04:28:30 CDT." <l03010501ae7e7bef91e4@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> replies: >> This discussion should probably be made in a Numerical Analysis arena. >> It is not a topic of debate for OS people. > >Which is, of course, an utterly ridiculous thing to say since the OS >people are still faced with *implementing* a practical solution for >which the numerical analysis people are little help at all I think that Terry pointed to the proper approach -- it is permissable, and perhaps desirable, to generate a NEW function. It is not acceptable, for historical compatability reasons, to CHANGE an existing one. This function is not something which "belongs to the OS". It is rather something which was imported from another discipline. If a change is to be made, that change needs to be first accepted by the originating discipline. (In this case, I am rather sure that it would not). Although many who "tinker" with FreeBSD might not like realize it. FreeBSD will not remain a viable system if it is viewed as something which needs only to meet the needs of its own developers. It must provide a proper foundation for non-developers to use it as a tool to accomplish their own needs.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03010502ae7e89c5d209>