At 20:52 +0100 1998/12/01, Erik Meijer wrote:
>>I think that the report should definitly rule out the possiblity that every
>>evaluation of randomIO uses the *same* initial seed.
>
>I agree. In fact, I would be most happy with a function getRandom :: IO
>Double that returns a random number between 0 and 1. I have not been able to
>hack such a function using Hugs' randomIO function.
I can think of adding a function getPseudoRandom, which has an extra
argument one interates on (same argument always prodcuing the same result).
Hans Aberg
* Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Home Page: <http://www.matematik.su.se/~haberg/>
* AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>
