[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gnugo-devel] rand() % n
From: |
Gunnar Farnebäck |
Subject: |
Re: [gnugo-devel] rand() % n |
Date: |
Fri, 14 May 2004 00:09:14 +0200 |
User-agent: |
EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.3 (sparc-sun-solaris2.9) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
David wrote:
> I was really wondering why so much time was being spent worrying
> about the low order bits when it does seem that most any decent RNG
> (and perhaps even a known poor one) would be far better than this
> application would require.
You'd have to ask Douglas about that. :-)
> It was not my intent to suggest the use of another RNG, unless the
> overflow problem really is an issue.
The overflow problem only exists in the proposed patch, not in the
current code. I see no reason to change the latter. Except for
everything else introducing floating point computations in the random
number generation would add another potential source for platform
dependencies.
/Gunnar
- [gnugo-devel] rand() % n, Douglas Ridgway, 2004/05/07
- Re: [gnugo-devel] rand() % n, Gunnar Farnebäck, 2004/05/07
- Re: [gnugo-devel] rand() % n, Douglas Ridgway, 2004/05/07
- Re: [gnugo-devel] rand() % n, Paul Pogonyshev, 2004/05/13
- Re: [gnugo-devel] rand() % n, David G Doshay, 2004/05/13
- Re: [gnugo-devel] rand() % n,
Gunnar Farnebäck <=
- Re: [gnugo-devel] rand() % n, Douglas Ridgway, 2004/05/14
- Re: [gnugo-devel] rand() % n, Gunnar Farnebäck, 2004/05/14
- Re: [gnugo-devel] rand() % n, Arend Bayer, 2004/05/15
- Re: [gnugo-devel] rand() % n, Gunnar Farnebäck, 2004/05/13
- Re: [gnugo-devel] rand() % n, Douglas Ridgway, 2004/05/13