Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:05:58 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Simon De Deyne <sdedeyne AT online DOT be>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: how about "more" random ?
In-Reply-To: <7np18t$nj5$1@trex.antw.online.be>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990729190414.27831B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Simon De Deyne wrote:

> 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.

Seed has nothing to do with randomness.

> > So to produce a random number between 0 and 99
> > x = rand() % 100;

The low bits of the random numbers are known to be not very random.  If 
you want more random results, try this (untested!):

	x = ((double) rand ()) * 100 / RAND_MAX;