Date:	Wed, 4 Jun 1997 09:39:41 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	George Foot <mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Random numbers/George
In-Reply-To:	<5n1ver$gn9@news.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.970604093901.2271A-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On 3 Jun 1997, George Foot wrote:

> Apparently, random() is a `more' random
> generator than rand(); presumably the reason the portable rand() function
> uses a worse generator is that the algorithm is specified in the standard,
> although I really don't know (does anyone?).

I think at least part of the reason for what `rand' does is that good
random generators are notoriously hard to invent, and those which
exist aren't always free.  DJGPP's libc needs to be totally free.

- Raw text -