p.f.moore: > I notice that System.Random.Mersenne has no randomR variants. Is there > a reason for this, or is it just an oversight? It makes porting code > from System.Random a little more complicated than it needs to be. I > know it's possible to write a function mapping a Double (or other > value, as appropriate) to a range, effectively replacing randomR, but > it's fiddly to get the edge cases right. A standard implementation > would be helpful.
Basically, to use the type class interface defined in System.Random, you will suffer a 100x decrease in performance, as the instances all convert via Integer. Rather than give people a surprise, I chose not to implement that interface. -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
