[ CCing [EMAIL PROTECTED] - this came about due to flood requiring a PRNG... ]
On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 09:21:06AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > Really this should be in APR, but I fear that PRNG is a touchy subject > for portability. The problem is that when you're using a PRNG, you usually > need to know the operating parameters of the PRNG, like what you ran in to: > period, distribution, etc... If we put an abstraction into APR, we may end > up with lowest-common-denominator-syndrome, where it becomes less than > useful for cases that require specific amounts of entropy. > What do you think? Knuth Vol. 2 or Numerical Recipies in C. =-) Both have fairly large and detailed sections on PRNGs. (I have both books.) I don't see a problem adding a PRNG into APR as long as we have a by default "good" one available with known characteristics. -- justin
