Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 13:47:25 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: ache@nagual.ru (=?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?=) Cc: terry@lambert.org, wollman@lcs.mit.edu, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org, bde@zeta.org.au Subject: Re: I plan to change random() for -current (was Re: rand() and random()) Message-ID: <199610072047.NAA14959@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199610071937.XAA04969@nagual.ru> from "=?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?=" at Oct 7, 96 11:37:18 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Here we have an issue where the technical merit is relative: it depends > > on if you depends on the "random" behaviour" or if you depends on the > > "pseudo" behaviour. This is the main ideological debate. > > Your "pseudo" idea is technically wrong. > Standard says that ([...] my comments) > "THIS function [NOT all possible > old and future implementations of this function] produce the > same sequence for same seed". I think you are having a semantics misunderstanding of the declarative English "this". The "this" on the manual page refers to implementation, not interface. 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?199610072047.NAA14959>