On 06/18/2013 08:06 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > It would probably be a pretty easy sell though, since it can probably stay > mostly the same aside from the struct -> class change (though at that point, > we might as well take the opportunity to make sure that anything else that > should be redesigned about it gets redesigned appropriately).
Yea, this is also my feeling, which is part of why I'm pushing this concept of "random ranges" -- I want to ensure that the related issues are properly understood and discussed and some well-thought-out design patterns are prepared in order to ensure good and statistically reliable functionality in std.random2. One small note -- I'd have thought that a struct with an internal pointer-to-payload (allocated using manual memory management, not GC) would have been a superior design for pseudo-random number generators compared to making them final classes. The latter is just the easiest thing to do for simple tests of PRNG-as-reference-type.