[#1026] Is this a bug? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
18 messages
2000/01/03
[#1053] rand() / drand48() — ts <decoux@...>
11 messages
2000/01/05
[#1055] Re: rand() / drand48()
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2000/01/05
[#1061] Re: rand() / drand48()
— gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
2000/01/07
Hi,
[#1067] Here docs not skipping leading spaces — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
5 messages
2000/01/08
[#1083] YADQ (Yet Another Dumb Question) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
12 messages
2000/01/10
[#1084] Infinite loop — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
17 messages
2000/01/11
[#1104] The value of while... — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
24 messages
2000/01/11
[#1114] Re: The value of while...
— Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
2000/01/12
matz@netlab.co.jp (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:
[#1128] Re: The value of while... — David Suarez de Lis <excalibor@...>
Hi all,
1 message
2000/01/12
[#1133] Re: Class variables... — David Suarez de Lis <excalibor@...>
Hi there,
2 messages
2000/01/12
[#1158] Is this expected behavior? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
6 messages
2000/01/21
[#1172] Re: Possible bug in ruby-man-1.4 — Huayin Wang <wang@...>
> |Well, I guess it comes down to what you mean by an integer
10 messages
2000/01/24
[#1177] Re: Possible bug in ruby-man-1.4
— Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
2000/01/25
matz@netlab.co.jp (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:
[#1188] Enumerable and index — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
5 messages
2000/01/27
[#1193] Semantics of chomp/chop — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
7 messages
2000/01/28
[#1197] Question about 'open' — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
8 messages
2000/01/30
[ruby-talk:01066] Forward: Re: Re: rand() / drand48()
From:
matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date:
2000-01-07 19:22:02 UTC
List:
ruby-talk #1066
I've received a personal reply from Andy. I'm forwarding it for others. ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:08:54 -0500 From: Andrew Hunt <andy@Toolshed.Com> To: matz@netlab.co.jp Subject: Re: [ruby-talk:01065] Re: rand() / drand48() >So, you think it's OK to generate different sequences for each >invocation, iff the mean to suppy seed is available, right? Correct. I think most developers' expectation is that when they call a random function, they'll get a random result each run. So, that would seem to follow the "Princple of Least Surprise" -- which Ruby is terrific at honoring, by the way. I can't think of another language where I can type in code for such a long time and have it run first try! Thanks, /\ndy ------- End of forwarded message -------