Alan Eldridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If rand() is truly universally available, I have no problem.
That seems to be the case. But we'll see. What this thread has been about was the RAND_MAX, which is sometimes not defined. > I just checked SUSv2 and rand() and random() are both there. It > would appear that random() obsoletes rand() because random() > generates a better sequence. This is not something we are really > concerned about here. "Good enough" is good enough. Exactly. > If rand() ever disappears on a platform, I'm sure you'll hear about > it. :) I don't think something accepted to ISO C is likely to disappear. :-)
