On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:06:41AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 00:16:24 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > > On 06/18/2013 12:10 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > > What were the reasons it was not accepted? > > > > I think mostly that, as a patch to std.random, it was a breaking > > change. There was a proposal to make a std.random2 but that would > > have been a rather more major piece of work :-( > > Yeah. Changing std.random to use reference types would be a breaking > change unless you just created new classes for everything. It would > just be cleaner to do std.random2 instead. [...]
The name "std.random2" still makes me cringe. I wish there was a good alternative, but the only names I can think of are along the lines of std.rnd or std.rand, which are inferior names we wouldn't want to be stuck with. :-( T -- Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous? -- Hobbes, from Calvin & Hobbes
