Am Mittwoch 07 Oktober 2009 23:28:59 schrieb Michael Mossey: > Luke Palmer wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Michael Mossey <m...@alumni.caltech.edu> > > wrote: > >> My thread about randomness got hijacked so I need to restate my > >> remaining question here. Is it acceptable to write pure routines that > >> use but do not return generators, and then call several of them from an > >> IO monad with a generator obtained by several calls to newStdGen? > > > > It's gross. What if you don't want IO as part of this computation? > > I don't quite follow your response. I want a program that initializes the > generator from the global generator because I want different behavior every > time I run it. So it will need IO. That's what I was trying to demonstrate. > And I was wondering if one can get around the difficulty of passing the > generator from call to call by using newStdGen in this way. > > Mike
Documentation says: newStdGen :: IO StdGen Applies split to the current global random generator, updates it with one of the results, and returns the other. So it's as safe as split is. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
