This is final fix for 1st value correlation problem. Somebody with
math statistic knowledge please run some test to be sure that NSHUFF is
good enough for this simple PRNG (i.e. not 100% good, but good for average
quality PRNG we have). My simple test shown that 100 is enough, but I
am not
I'm afraid I don't understand the fix... and how it
seems to affect the historical behaviour of srand()/rand().
How does it address the understanding that if I use
srand(28), I will get exactly the same sequence of
numbers srand(28) produced yesterday, last week,
last year?
I have worked with
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 07:01:50 -0500, Thomas David Rivers wrote:
Please, oh please, don't change that behavior in
srand()/rand().
This subject is not discussed (again). We already discuss it long time ago
and agrees that changes are allowed especially when they fix bugs. Search
mailing
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 07:01:50AM -0500, Thomas David Rivers wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand the fix... and how it
seems to affect the historical behaviour of srand()/rand().
How does it address the understanding that if I use
srand(28), I will get exactly the same sequence of
numbers
Thus spake Thomas David Rivers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm afraid I don't understand the fix... and how it
seems to affect the historical behaviour of srand()/rand().
How does it address the understanding that if I use
srand(28), I will get exactly the same sequence of
numbers srand(28) produced
