Mark Murray wrote: > "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" writes: > > Wouldn't it be a good idea to change the name at the same time? Or > > should it be retained for compatibility reasons with other BSDs? > > > > Currently the name needlessly exposes implementation detail. Callers > > expect good, cheap, non-blocking randomness but don't give a hoot if > > that is actually provided trough use of RC4 or not. I see no reason why > > the implementation could be changed if the contract is maintained. > > Good point. We can re-implement random() internally with arc4rand(). > > Objections?
The same objections I always raise when someone replaces a PRNG that allows repeatable results with old software with a new one, that does not, I guess. BTW: if /dev/random is so damn good, why are you using it as an implementation detail for these functions, instead of adding yet another backward-incompatible algorithm? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
