I'm hopefully near to finding a version of nextLong(long) that
distributes the numbers better.
There's no such functionality in Random (even in Java 6) so that might
even be a useful addition for Lang3.
But there are some other aspects of RandomUtils and JVMRandom classes
that seem plain wrong in the current 2.4 release:
RandomUtils.nextInt() returns a number in the range [0,Integer.MAX_VALUE)
however
RandomUtils.nextInt(Random) returns a number in the range
[Integer.MIN_VALUE,Integer.MAX_VALUE]
(unless Random is JVMRandom of course)
Similarly for nextLong().
This is not documented for 2.4 and seems like an accident of the
original implementation, rather than a conscious design decision. I've
added some Javadoc to trunk to document the current behaviour, but I
am now wondering whether it would be OK to fix the behaviour so it
agrees with the 2.4 Javadoc?
Also, given that JVMRandom now relies on a static copy of Random, it
would be trivial to implement some of the missing functionality, such
as:
public static void nextBytes(byte[]);
public static synchronized double nextGaussian();
with corresponding changes to the instance methods in JVMRandom.
Should this be done, or is it better to leave the methods unimplemented?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
