On Sunday 02 February 2003 8:39 pm, Bakul Shah wrote: > What I am suggesting is to leave random() as it is and > guarantee its behavior won't change and add cryto_random() or > whatever, and indicate it *may* change.
Where was it indicated that random() wouldn't change? > Note that it is rand() that is broken, not random() as can be > seen by modifying Kris Kennaways' test so I don't see why > Mark Murray was talking about changing it in the first place. rand()/random() -- either way, the same thing applies, it just happens you use random() rather than rand(). (I see no problem to changing either; do you object to this rand() change on the same basis?) Regards, Edward. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
