Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:11:51 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: rand
In-Reply-To: <199811171504.KAA29099@indy.delorie.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.981118091128.20491D-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, DJ Delorie wrote:

> If ANSI doesn't specify the actual sequence of numbers, can we just
> keep returning zero from rand() until srand() is called?

I think this would confuse even more people than the current behavior.

The current version produces the same sequence, and people are
complaining about that being non-random.  Producing zeroes is even
more non-random, and in addition it will confuse those who *do* know
about the repeatable sequence feature.