Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 10:42:49 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: phk@critter.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp) Cc: mrm@Mole.ORG, terry@lambert.org, wollman@lcs.mit.edu, ache@nagual.ru, bde@zeta.org.au, current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Subject: Re: I plan to change random() for -current (was Re: rand() and random()) Message-ID: <199610081742.KAA16537@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <3071.844755254@critter.tfs.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Oct 8, 96 08:14:14 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> But I'm also tired of Terry blowing things WAY out of proportion. I didn't blow it out of proportion. If you had taken my initial arguments at face value and just backed off from doing a change until you had better data, I would never have made a second posting on the subject. I certainly couldn't have argued with better data, if you had had it -- but you didn't. > Nobody has even thought about tinkering with rand48. You know damn well that it's the principle, not the specific function; just because most of the work cited uses the rand48 family of functions in no way excuses the change. > Nobody needing serious random numbers uses rand(). What about the multicast routing draft, which uses the function for its hash, and therefore expects it to be implemented identically across all platforms? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610081742.KAA16537>