On Sunday, 1 June 2014 at 14:22:31 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
I missed the debate at the time, but actually, I'm slightly
more concerned over the remark in that discussion that the new
uniform was ported from java.util.Random. Isn't OpenJDK
GPL-licensed ... ?
Having read more of the debate, I think coverage is more
important than reproducibility. From my point of view, I'm not
sure if there's much point in giving reproducible wrong answers.
On Sunday, 1 June 2014 at 12:11:22 UTC, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
I second the thought that reproducibility across different
versions is an important feature of any random generation
library. Sadly, I didn't use a language yet which supported
such a flavor of reproducibility for a significant
On 02/06/14 08:57, Chris Cain via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sunday, 1 June 2014 at 14:22:31 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
I missed the debate at the time, but actually, I'm slightly more concerned
over the remark in that discussion that the new uniform was
On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 18:46:18 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
I'm really sorry, Chris, I was obviously mixing things up: on
rereading, the person in the earlier forum discussion (not PR
thread) who talks about porting from Java wasn't you. I'm very
glad to be
On Saturday, 31 May 2014 at 21:22:48 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On 31/05/14 22:37, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On 30/05/14 22:45, monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Didn't you make changes to how and when the global PRNG is
Thank you for hunting down the difference, in my case it's not a
deal breaking problem. I can just specify the compiler and
language version, then the results become reproducible. And I'm
sure I'll appreciate the performance boost!
On Sunday, 1 June 2014 at 12:11:22 UTC, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
On 01/06/14 14:11, Ivan Kazmenko via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
I second the thought that reproducibility across different versions is an
important feature of any random generation library. Sadly, I didn't use a
language yet which supported such a flavor of reproducibility for a significant
On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 16:44 +, Andrew Brown via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
GDC version 4.8.2,i guess that's my problem. This is what happens
when you let Ubuntu look after your packages.
Debian Sid has GCC 4.9 packages, but that may not help?
--
Russel.
On Saturday, 31 May 2014 at 06:54:13 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 16:44 +, Andrew Brown via
Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
GDC version 4.8.2,i guess that's my problem. This is what
happens
when you let Ubuntu look after your packages.
Debian Sid
On 30/05/14 22:45, monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Didn't you make changes to how and when the global PRNG is popped and accessed
in randomShuffle? I figured it *could* be an explanation.
No, it was partialShuffle that I tweaked, and that shouldn't affect the results
here. There
On 31/05/14 22:37, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On 30/05/14 22:45, monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Didn't you make changes to how and when the global PRNG is popped and accessed
in randomShuffle? I figured it *could* be an explanation.
I think it's more
On 31/05/14 23:22, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
It's due to the the updated uniform() provided in this pull request:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/fc48d56284f19bf171780554b63b4ae83808b894
You can see the effects in action by running e.g. the
Hi there,
The following code:
void main(){
import std.array : array;
import std.stdio : writeln;
import std.random : rndGen, randomShuffle;
import std.range : iota;
rndGen.seed(12);
int[] temp = iota(10).array;
randomShuffle(temp);
writeln(temp);
}
writes [1, 8, 4, 2,
I must note if the sequence is predictable, it's not random
anymore, it's pseudo-random at most.
Also, if anyone interested, PHP had such way to generate
predictable sequences in the past, but after it was horribly
misused by various people for crypto keys/password generation
purposes, they
I'd like it to be predictable given the seed, right now it's
predictable given the seed and the compiler. Is this a bug,
shouldn't the random number process be completely defined in the
language?
I'm not trying to misuse it like the PHP crowd :) It's for a
piece of scientific software: I'm
On Friday, 30 May 2014 at 13:39:18 UTC, Andrew Brown wrote:
Hi there,
The following code:
void main(){
import std.array : array;
import std.stdio : writeln;
import std.random : rndGen, randomShuffle;
import std.range : iota;
rndGen.seed(12);
int[] temp = iota(10).array;
GDC version 4.8.2,i guess that's my problem. This is what happens
when you let Ubuntu look after your packages.
Thank you very much!
Andrew
On Friday, 30 May 2014 at 16:13:49 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Friday, 30 May 2014 at 13:39:18 UTC, Andrew Brown wrote:
Hi there,
The following code:
On 30/05/14 18:13, monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Are you sure you are compiling with the same version of dmd and gdc? Fixes were
made to the rand.d library in the latest release, which could explain the
difference you are observing.
Which fixes are you thinking of here ... ? I
On Friday, 30 May 2014 at 18:41:55 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On 30/05/14 18:13, monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Are you sure you are compiling with the same version of dmd
and gdc? Fixes were
made to the rand.d library in the latest release, which
20 matches
Mail list logo
