Currently the only reason a better PRNG is needed in core is because of the new hash table randomization stuff that is also in core (as of the upcoming Chicken 4.8). User code can use any one of the random eggs. Cryptographic quality is probably overkill.
On Apr 11, 2012, at 6:21 AM, Thomas Chust wrote: > If we really wanted to include a PRNG in the CHICKEN distribution that > should satisfy any definition of "good", I would suggest to use a modern > stream cipher with high throughput, for example SOSEMANUK [1]. But I'm > not sure whether a suite of cryptographic functions is really something > that must be included in a language's standard library. _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
