On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:18:36PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > On 06/17/2013 09:36 PM, monarch_dodra wrote: > > Good analysis but (sorry) I think you are on the wrong track. > > > > One of the major problems in std.random is that the ranges use value > > semantics. This means they are *saved* whenever they are copied, as > > opposed to just referenced. This creates the problems you have > > mentioned, and even more. > > I agree that the fact that pseudo-random number generators use value > semantics is a serious problem, and I was thinking of our previous > discussions in preparing these remarks.
Yeah we need to change RNGs to have reference semantics. I consider that a major design flaw in std.random. [...] > > I have tried to fix it before: > > http://forum.dlang.org/thread/oiczxzkzxketxitnc...@forum.dlang.org > > FWI, I gave up on the project, because it was too complex for me to > > handle an entire module. But there were no reasons for it to not > > work. > > I remember your work and was sad to see that it was not accepted -- > actually one reason to start this discussion was to try and push > awareness back to your contributions :-) [...] What were the reasons it was not accepted? T -- If it breaks, you get to keep both pieces. -- Software disclaimer notice