> Note added by joey,
> text:
> My vote: +0
> Suggestions/remarks:
> I'll take the proposal one piece at a time:
Good idea :-)
> float random() / int random(min, max):
> If I understand correctly, the only way you'll know what kind of
> return the user is expecting is by counting args. That means if I
> just want a random number between LONG_MIN and LONG_MAX (what I expect
> *most* users of a "random" fuction are looking for), I have to use the
> longer format of random(min, max). This seems counter-intuitive...
> The most commonly used version should be the easiest to type. I'd
> rather see another function entirely for floats.
O yes... oversight, indeed. It was a quick idea which I typed in... indeed,
a separate function would be better.
I thought that you should always give a range because it otherwise makes no
sense. But indeed, LONG_MIN ... LONG_MAX does make sense.
> set_random():
> This seems to be to go out of it's way to bring things back to the
> way they currently are. If they want to change the algorithm, and the
> algorithm is decided via an ini switch, they can use ini_set/ini_alter().
> The primary goal here is to make it possible through a single function
> call to obtain a random number, is it not? Let random() seed itself.
I wasn't clear. Usually, you do NOT call set_random(), indeed, ini-set is
the way it is supposed to be. The only circumstance where you need
set_random is when you want a specific seed&algorithm, for example while
debugging, place it at the top of the script and you'll get identical
numbers each call.
>
> There is a good idea here, IMHO, and that is to reduce the namespace
> by wrapping all possible PRNG's with a very thin wrapper, but I don't
> see any need to break BC or make this wrapper any "fatter" than it
> needs to be to serve the purpose.
I'll return to this and the rest later, I need to go now, I'm supposed to
assist in a workgroup...
--Jeroen
> I'd rather see:
>
> new ini switch: rand_algoritm, defaults to "mt". (I still think that
> mt is probably the best for most people, but I know that some people
> disagree...)
>
> new function: int random() : The same as if user called the desired
> rand() algoritm from user-space, with the added benefit of insuring
> that a sufficently unique seed has been provided first.
>
> I don't see a need for any of the rest of this, but I have said before
> that I'm really not very good at evaluating things from a "Design"
> point of view...I'm much better at evaluating implementations to judge
> how well the *fit* the proposed design.
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
