Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 20:53:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199809300053.UAA13114@indy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: nate AT cartsys DOT com
CC: Kbwms AT aol DOT com, djgpp-workers AT backup DOT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <36117F93.B0830922@cartsys.com> (message from Nate Eldredge on
	Tue, 29 Sep 1998 17:47:15 -0700)
Subject: Re: Proposed New Random


> Do we actually have to duplicate the algorithm, or just the weird
> multitype initstate etc. interface?

Since it's well known that random() works that way, I'd suspect that
if we changed it people would complain.  Since rand() is free, having
random() be not-free isn't as big a deal; not as big a deal as
dropping in an unexpected algorithm (in my opinion).