On 17 Dec 2002, Ketil Z. Malde wrote: > Mark Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: (snip) > > Can we still do this concisely and get the new state of the rng back out > > the other end after the die has been thrown a few times? > > Oops; I missed that part!
No problem - it wasn't exactly clearly part of the original problem specification. (-: It was good to see what randomRs does, too. > > Or are things like newStdGen meant to be so cheap that it's fine to > > use lots of different RNGs instead of one that you thread through > > everything? Also, I was wondering if I can or should use monads to thread the RNG state through everything instead of always returning these two-tuples; I've been peering at things like Control.Monad.Cont to try to see what they're good for. > I've no idea - I've always used StdGen's as if they were going out of > style. (You can, of course, `split` them and get two for the price of > one) Ah - I was never sure what to make of that - I normally just use the GHC online Haddockised stuff which tells me no more than the type signatures, but I suppose "split" must be more than (\x->(x,x))! (-: (I'll be happy to help with adding documentation once I'm sure of the semantics myself.) -- Mark _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe