Hi David, On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:11:55PM -0700, David White wrote: > So a couple of things: > > When I implemented the RNG I was aware of the potential problems with it. I > maintain that these problems apply to using an RNG for cryptography or > other security. I think this is a very different use case to using it for a > game. I maintain that the current implementation is just fine for a game.
I agree, I mainly like to switch for the larger range as is sometimes needed for WML. > The C++11 standard includes RNG features. Is there any reason we can't use > this? I advised to pick a algorithm from boost random that is also included in C++11. > I think moving Wesnoth toward using C++11 in general would be nice, as > all major compiler vendors are rushing to implement C++11. In my opinion C++11 compiler support is not that great yet :-( If we want to move Wesnoth to C++11, we should IMO also start to rewrite existing code to C++11, for example enabling move support can change a parts of the class hierarchy. I have no idea how unfamiliar C++11 will look to our development team. (I have been using it for several toy projects and feel comfortable to use it, but C++11 code can look rather different from C++98 code.) We have a Google Summer of Code project to rewrite the addon server. This project will use C++11 and should use C++11 idoms. Trademark, the mentor for this project is familiar with C++11. Since the addon server has no real ties with the rest of the code and it is the ideal place to have a look at C++11. So I'd like to evaluate C++11 after the summer. (I think we should/will move at some point, I just don't know when.) -- Regards, Mark de Wever aka Mordante/SkeletonCrew _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
