On Tue 19 Feb, Justin Fletcher wrote: > > James Taylor wrote: > > > > Please look at the problem before passing comment. > > Still, it's empirical evidence; whilst it may be skewed there's > very little you can say from empirical evidence other than that > over the period... I said this.
I think your condescension is rather unnecessary. You *still* haven't run the program have you? Please run it, understand it, and only then make such comments, otherwise you run the risk of seeming foolish. > > I'm referring to Acorn C > > Perl isn't built with Acorn C, though; I now know that UnixLib was used to the *exclusion* of the standard Acorn CLib. Previously I thought UnixLib would only be used for the things not provided by CLib which is why I thought it strange that rand() shouldn't work. I stand corrected, thank you. > if you want to comment on the randomness of perl; > you will have to use UnixLib. As a user of Perl I can comment on the randomness of Perl regardless of whether I also happen to be a user of UnixLib. In fact, I've never used UnixLib and I'm not familiar with its workings. If I were, I'd just replace its rand function with a C equivalent of the Mitchell-Moore generator I posted here recently. -- James Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Based in Southam, Cheltenham, UK. PGP key available ID: 3FBE1BF9 Fingerprint: F19D803624ED6FE8 370045159F66FD02
