From: Chris B. <Chr...@no...> - 2002-07-24 17:00:45
|
Just to add my $.02: I disagree with Eric about what the default behaviour should be. Every programming language/environment I have ever used uses some kind of "random" seed by default. When I want reproducible results (which I often do for testing) I can specify a seed. I find the the most useful behaviour. As Eric points out, it is not trivial to generate a "random" seed (from the time, or whatever), so it doesn't make sense to burdon the nieve user with this chore. Therefore, I strongly support keeping the default behaviour of a "random" seed. Eric Maryniak wrote: > then I'd urge at least to use a better initial seed. > In certain applications, e.g. generating session id's in crypto programs, > non-predictability of initial seeds is crucial. But if you have a look > at GPG's or OpenSSL's source for a PRNG (especially for Windows), it looks > like an art in itself. So perhaps RNG's 'clock code' should replace > RandomArray2's: it uses microseconds (in gettimeofday), too, and thus will > not have the 1-second problem. This I agree with: a better default initial seed would be great. As someone said, "show me the code!". I don't imagine anyone would object to improving this. -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer NOAA/OR&R/HAZMAT (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chr...@no... |