From: Kbwms AT aol DOT com
Message-ID: <f65fe2d.3650745b@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:52:11 EST
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: src/libc/ansi/stdlib/rand.c
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Dear Eli Zaretskii,

On 11-16-98 at 04:25:17 EST you wrote:
>
> Doesn't this violate the ANSI Standard?  My references indicate that
> it requires the implementation to ``behave as if the target
> environment calls "srand(1)" at program startup.''  (Which also means
> that `next' should start with 1, not 0.)
>

Please cite the references.  As nearly as I can determine, and as stated
in "The Standard C library," (page 350) 'The behavior of *rand* can vary
among implementations.'

> I think most people would expect `rand' to produce the same sequence
> unless they called `srand', even if ANSI doesn't mandate it.
>

You have a point.  But learned usage should prompt a user to call
*srand* with the same parameter to get a deterministic result.

>
> I think ANSI specifies that ``implementation shall behave as if no
> library function calls the `rand' function.''  If I'm right, this
> violates that requirement.  (Why are the calls to `rand' a good idea,
> anyway?)

The extra calls cleanse the generator.  I'd like to see about 50 calls
but three might be enough.



K.B. Williams