Thanks!
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Juergen Sauermann < juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Elias that 16807 is a pretty arbitrary and useless value, but > for the sake of IBM APL2 compatibility I have changed GNU APL to use it as > well. SVN 355. > > Note that localizing ⎕RLis currently not fully correct, but this ts on my > TODO list > > /// Jürgen > > > > On 07/02/2014 05:19 AM, Blake McBride wrote: > > Since ⎕RL is defined as starting at a specific value in their language > manual, and IBM APL 2 operates that way, I can imagine someone testing that > value in a program to see if any random numbers had been generated > previously. (I agree it is a stupid and not entirely valid test, but I > cannot predict how other people will use a standard...) > > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Because adopting a clearly arbitrary value that provides absolutely no >> benefit, instead of something slightly more logical while still conforming >> with the spec is, in my opinion, the better way to go. >> >> No one is going to fork the project over this, so this is in the hands >> of Jürgen. Have have own opinion and I've made it clear. No need to discuss >> this further I think. >> >> Regards, >> Elias >> >> >> On 2 July 2014 11:09, Blake McBride <blake1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> No need to argue. Nowhere is the random number generator algorithm >>> specified, but ⎕RL is. I thought we long ago agreed that, except for >>> extensions, we were attempting to match the IBM APL standard - for better >>> or worse. Additionally, in any area where it is arbitrary or pointless, >>> why not just match the standard and avoid controversy whether you think it >>> is meaningless or not? >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'd argue because GNU APL uses a different random number generator, so >>>> using the same RL value is pointless at best, and can raise unfulfilled >>>> expectations and confusion at worst. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Elias >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2 July 2014 10:57, Blake McBride <blake1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> As I've stated before, I am not smart enough to understand that >>>>> spec. IBM's language manual is readable, and the value it is clear about >>>>> is what I expected. Also, I just tested IBM APL 2. Initial ⎕RL is 16807. >>>>> If any value is valid, why not match IBM APL 2 and their Language Manual? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The standard says the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> *"The initial value of random-link in a clear-workspace is that >>>>>> member of the internal-* >>>>>> *value-set for random-link given by the implementation-parameter >>>>>> initial-random-link."* >>>>>> >>>>>> So, setting it to 1 seems to be reasonable enough. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Elias >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2 July 2014 10:07, Blake McBride <blake1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> According to the IBM APL2 Language Manual (page 421 AND page 322), >>>>>>> ⎕RL initial value, and upon )CLEAR should be 16807. GNU APL seems to be >>>>>>> setting it to 1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Blake >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
