Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > On 12/06/12 14:58, Jens Mueller wrote: > >Right. These are inconsistent. This should be fixed. Can't we just use a > >default argument like > >auto randomSample(R, Random)(R r, size_t n, Random gen = > >Random(unpredictableSeed)); > > > >Currently the documentation does not even state what is difference > >between the versions accepting a random generator vs. the ones without a > >random generator. > > ... so can we agree that a given random sample should _always_ > lazily evaluate to the same output, whether or not it's been given a > specified RNG? > > i.e. that > > auto sample = randomSample(iota(0, 100), 5); > writeln(sample); > writeln(sample); > writeln(sample); > > ... should produce 3 times the same output? > > If so I'll get to work on a bug report and a patch set and unittest.
Yes, I'll agree with you. But I don't know about others. It'll be nice if others share their opinion such that your efforts won't be wasted. That code was mostly written by Andrei and David. Jens
