On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:34:55PM +0200, Michele La Monaca wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Peter Bex <pe...@more-magic.net> wrote: > > Yeah, the numbers random implementation is shitty, which is why I > > decided to omit it from my port to CHICKEN core (CHICKEN 5's random is > > still fixnum only). Personally, I think it would be better if we simply > > got rid of all "random" support in core, because there's no way this is ever > > going to satisfy everyone. Besides, the standard C library functions are > > deeply flawed, especially on some platforms like OS X. > > I think that if you keep removing features from core, we will soon run > out of them.
That's silly rethoric, considering we are on the verge of merging in a huge new feature (full numeric tower) and have a lot more new things planned in the roadmap: http://wiki.call-cc.org/chicken-5-roadmap We want a well-defined, coherent core rather than a core with features from all over the place in various degrees of disrepair. > When I use “stock" random functions in any language I > don’t have high expectations, but for sure, I always expect a random > function to be readily available. If this is such an important feature it may make more sense to include a "proper" PRNG. Anyway, this is just my opinion, I don't expect the entire core team to agree with me. Cheers, Peter
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users