[#11439] comments needed for Random class — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

15 messages 2007/06/12

[#11450] Re: new method dispatch rule (matz' proposal) — David Flanagan <david@...>

This is a late response to the very long thread that started back in

17 messages 2007/06/13

[#11482] Ruby Changes Its Mind About Non-Word Characters — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

Does this look like a bug to anyone else?

10 messages 2007/06/16

[#11505] Question about the patchlevel release cycle — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org>

1.8.6 thread support was broken in bad ways. It stayed for three months

20 messages 2007/06/20
[#11512] Re: Question about the patchlevel release cycle — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2007/06/20

Hi, I'm the 1.8.6 branch manager.

[#11543] Re: Apple reportedly to ship with ruby 1.8.6-p36 unless informed what to patch — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:47 PM, Bill Kelly wrote:

10 messages 2007/06/27

Re: comments needed for Random class

From: Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>
Date: 2007-06-16 21:23:30 UTC
List: ruby-core #11486
Daniel DeLorme wrote:
> a float in the range 1.1 <= n < 3.1, same as 1.1+rand*(3.1-1.1)

The world is not *that* simple.
What if one (or both) side of range is Infinity? it is quite possible
programmer think ruby can generate a half-open random sequence in that
way (which is obviously a delusion).
What if (Float::MIN..Float::MAX) is given?  Random float of that range
(1) have far grater lower bound than Float::MIN if you choose its least
upper bound be Float::MAX, or (2) have far smaller upper bound than
Float::MAX if you choose its infimum be Float::MIN, or (3) have
non-uniform distribution if you choose to force both bounds.

In This Thread