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
