Hi Matt, 2011/2/17 mattschinkel <[email protected]>: >> I suggest you do what you please with >> the library as long as you remove my name from it when you change it. > Jeop, I'm not sure how to take this statement. Take it for what it says: feel free to change it any way you want. I don't want to be the one to hold jallib back. If the change goes beyond adding a procedure to set _rndx, please remove my name from it. Btw: the reason it is not already there is that it is a trivial function, but the size of the parameter can be either a word or dword.
I gave my point of view on the random library in my 22:30 post and currently don't have the time available to do research on the subject, read half a dozen lengthy emails, search for old code from Wouter and anlyse it or do any significant testing. Especially since the current lib is extensively tested at the time and I did not see any argument yet on what is wrong with the current library. The only thing that is a usefull addition is *separte* code - eihter optional or working on all pics - that puts its seed in _rndx. > Please try to assist me, I need your help. I did help you. I gave you my view on the subject, explaining the distinct between the seed and the algorithm, there is a link in the source about the algorithm and there is a lot on random algorithms on the net. It is up to you to take this or ignore it. And yes, it annoys me that you criticise the library without getting specific and in addtion to this, suggests that I said there is something wrong with Wouters lib - probably to let me do the analisys and report on this. You might have had a chance if you'd asked nicely! > May I open an issue? Again: do as you please. I won't bug you on this topic again. Joep -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
