On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 12:18:43 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
On 02/19/2013 12:46 PM, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
I'd like to note that my post is about randomCover, not
randomSample. I do see
the difference between the purpose of randomSample and
randomShuffle. But
randomCover's effect is, at the first glance, just a slower
version of
randomSample wrapped as a lazy generator.
To be honest, I think RandomCover is (statistically) unsafe to
use right now, as it takes a copy of the random number
generator it is given _by value_.
If it keeps a copy, how it is passed (value or ref) actually
becomes irrelevant.
This is also a strong argument for the reference semantic PRNG
approach.
