G'day all.
Quoting Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I suspect that developers requiring a good source of randomness for
> security would disagree with you.
I would hope that developers requiring a good source of randomness for
security would know better than to use System.Random!
Cheers,
And
> Now, I don't understand this at all...
>
> All the development of the Random stuff in all languages has nothing
> of random whatsoever. Perhaps *some* people like to seed the generator
> with the clock time, but most *real* developers *known to me*
> usually choose
> the seed deterministicall
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> > >>why is the Random module situated under System? Wouldn't
> > >>something like Data be more adequate?
> > >
> > > There is usually an external source of randomness, which is why the
> > > library in placed in System rather than Data. A purely functional
> > > random
Am Dienstag, 2. März 2004 13:47 schrieb Jerzy Karczmarczuk:
> Simon Marlow wrote:
> >>why is the Random module situated under System? Wouldn't
> >>something like Data be more adequate?
> >
> > There is usually an external source of randomness, which is why the
> > library in placed in System rathe
Simon Marlow wrote:
why is the Random module situated under System? Wouldn't
something like Data be more adequate?
There is usually an external source of randomness, which is why the
library in placed in System rather than Data. A purely functional
random library would be rather less useful.
> why is the Random module situated under System? Wouldn't
> something like Data be more adequate?
There is usually an external source of randomness, which is why the
library in placed in System rather than Data. A purely functional
random library would be rather less useful...
Cheers,
Hello,
why is the Random module situated under System? Wouldn't something like Data
be more adequate?
Wolfgang
___
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
