Le 21/09/2016 à 14:46, Gilles a écrit :

> If we want "Commons RNG" to be a repository of all
> generators that exist out there, irrespective of their
> known weaknesses, it's fine; but we should be careful to
> not let casual users just pick one of the implementations
> on the premise that the library focuses on high quality
> generators.

I think it's fine to have weaker implementations as long as they are
properly documented with the necessary warnings. There aren't that many
algorithms anyway, we'll quickly have the interesting ones.


> I have no issue with adding any new implementation,[4]
> on the conditions that it comes with
>  1. a unit test where the output (say, a few hundred
>     numbers) of "Commons RNG" is compared against a
>     "reference" implementation,[5]
>  2. the outputs of the "RandomStressTester"[6] piping
>     from the "Dieharder" and "TU01/BigCrush" actual
>     stress test suites.[7]

Sounds fair


> [1] Emmanuel, if you don't mind, we'd thus set the JIRA
>     issue "type" to "wish" rather than "improvement".

As you want, that doesn't make a big difference. It could even qualify
for the "New Feature" type.

> [2] https://xkcd.com/221/

Now I'm tempted to implement a XKCDRandomGenerator just for fun :)

> [3] Up to now, I had assumed that no known-to-be-bad
>     generators would be part of "Commons RNG" (except
>     "JDK", for reference purposes).

Note that as time goes some generators will be supplanted by better
ones, so Commons RNG will inevitably contain implementations weaker than
the then current state of the art.

> [4] It is not a problem to wait another couple of weeks
>     for the additional code, before releasing 1.0.

Ok, I can try implementing LCGs then.

Emmanuel Bourg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Reply via email to