On 05/21/2016 01:56 PM, stepharo wrote:
I checked and CMWC Marsaglia is part of polymath
PMNumberGenerator allSubclasses an
OrderedCollection(PMBernoulliGenerator PMBinomialGenerator
PMConstantGenerator PMExponentialGenerator PMGaussianGenerator
PMPoissonGenerator)
PMRandomGenerator
I checked and CMWC Marsaglia is part of polymath
PMNumberGenerator allSubclasses an
OrderedCollection(PMBernoulliGenerator PMBinomialGenerator
PMConstantGenerator PMExponentialGenerator PMGaussianGenerator
PMPoissonGenerator)
PMRandomGenerator allSubclasses an
Though this only works on Unix, so on Windows it uses the current time
as a seed. It might get better results using #microsecondClockValue
instead of #millisecondClockValue. And I'd think about just taking the
microsecond value and sending it #hashMultiply instead of the weird
things it's
On 05/18/2016 10:42 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
Martin,
Would you be willing to contribute your implementation to Pharo ? Possibly with
some tests ?
I'll ask GemTalk management if they're OK with that. I imagine it'll be
OK. But you might be better off taking the Squeak implementation,
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 07:57:37AM +0800, Ben Coman wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Peter Uhn??k wrote:
> >
> > Not so random??? not random at all.
>
> Obligitory cartoon...
> https://xkcd.com/221/
>
Perfect :-)
On 05/18/2016 04:05 PM, Peter Uhnák wrote:
My questions:
1) do we really want to have global fixed seed?
No!
2) Random new should actually setup a usable seed so I don't need to
first run it N times before I can use the value
Yes.
3) Should we switch to what UUIDGenerator is using…
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Peter Uhnák wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (cc-ing Robert Withers as he seems to be working with cryptography and
> security... as this seems related and may have some implications, but I am
> likely wrong about the implications)
>
> yesterday I've
Hi,
(cc-ing Robert Withers as he seems to be working with cryptography and
security... as this seems related and may have some implications, but I am
likely wrong about the implications)
yesterday I've encountered a very surprising behavior
I executed the same script `10 atRandom` on the same