From: "Michael Stewart" <mike AT reggin DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: how about "more" random ?
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:27:15 +0100
Organization: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd.
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <7np394$1n4$1@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>
References: <7nn5h5$1v1$1 AT trex DOT antw DOT online DOT be> <7nn6iq$hl9$1 AT taliesin DOT netcom DOT net DOT uk> <7np18t$nj5$1 AT trex DOT antw DOT online DOT be>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hgty.capgemini.co.uk
X-Trace: taliesin.netcom.net.uk 933236836 1764 194.42.240.2 (29 Jul 1999 08:27:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT corp DOT netcom DOT net DOT uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jul 1999 08:27:16 GMT
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Simon De Deyne wrote in message <7np18t$nj5$1 AT trex DOT antw DOT online DOT be>...
>Thanks for the answer! I did consider this way, but then,
>i also noticed that the seeding with the time function  (srand) isn't
>as random as when i used the other random function.
>Would there be a way to get more random numbers anyway?


I've never really looked into it, rand() has been more than adequate for my
needs so far.
You could of course write your own routine :-) There is plenty of code for
random number generators on the net (have a look in Bob Stouts Snippets).