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
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


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.