Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 04:28:30 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: ache@nagual.ru, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: I plan to change random() for -current (was Re: rand() and random()) Message-ID: <l03010501ae7e7bef91e4@[208.2.87.4]> 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
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> > 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03010501ae7e7bef91e4>