On 01/26/2016 02:07 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 23:34:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I see no problem with adding a category of rngs that are not forward.
Naming is of course the hardest problem in our community :o). A good
stard would be a /dev/random wrapper. -- Andrei
It's not about different categories of RNG in this case -- really, NO
RNGs should be forward ranges.
I think a pseudo-rng as a forward range is useful. It's good in testing
and experimentation to fork a sequence of pseudo-random numbers, turn
the clock back, etc. Essentially I see no harm in it; it's always easy
to make a forward range into an input range, it's the opposite that's
hard. -- Andrei
