Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 11:14:51 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: George Foot <george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Random numbers/George
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970604185835.12907A-100000@sable.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970605111419.5841L-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, George Foot wrote:

> But isn't random() in libc too? Surely that algorithm must be free as
> well...

So what do you suggest, that instead of having two random generators
libc should have only one?  As it happens, we have `random' and `rand'
which are different.  `rand' is simpler (thus faster), but has fewer
features.