delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Thu, 5 Jun 1997 11:14:51 +0300 (IDT) |
From: | Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> |
To: | George Foot <george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk> |
cc: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
Subject: | Re: Random numbers/George |
In-Reply-To: | <Pine.OSF.3.95.970604185835.12907A-100000@sable.ox.ac.uk> |
Message-ID: | <Pine.SUN.3.91.970605111419.5841L-100000@is> |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, George Foot wrote: > But isn't random() in libc too? Surely that algorithm must be free as > well... So what do you suggest, that instead of having two random generators libc should have only one? As it happens, we have `random' and `rand' which are different. `rand' is simpler (thus faster), but has fewer features.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |