Tom Pledger wrote:
> 
> Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
>  > [...]
>  >
>  > Yes, that's a possible alternative. The current story says
>  > "at least 30 bits"; you are suggesting [minBound..maxBound].
>  > In effect, you would mandate that every generator must have
>  > genRange g = (minBound,msxBound).
>  >
>  > Seems like a reasonable alternative.  Comments?
> 
> That would affect the performance of some generators, by forcing them
> to use Integer internally, instead of Int.  All the subtractive
> generators I've seen (all 2 of them) depend on using numbers
> internally, which have twice the range of the generated numbers.
> 

Hear, hear.  I still like Fergus's clarification, however.  It is
certainly a minimal change, that arguably was the original intended
meaning.  The GHC/hugs StdGen implementation would have to be changed to
fit the "clarification", however.

Matt Harden

Reply via email to