On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Peter Bex <pe...@more-magic.net> wrote: > 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
Adding new (great!) features it's not a good reason to remove useful one. Of course, my sentence was an exaggeration to stress the point and give you heads-up. Regards, Michele _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users