[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Improve `seed->random-state' in stable-2.0?
From: |
Mike Gran |
Subject: |
Re: Improve `seed->random-state' in stable-2.0? |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:08:33 -0800 (PST) |
> From: Andy Wingo <address@hidden>
> That would indeed be a mean thing to do! It's not what I'm suggesting
> though. Deprecation means causing Guile to emit warnings, at
> compile-time or at runtime, indicating that a particular interface will
> go away at some point, and noting the interface that should be used
> instead.
>
> I think it's fairly helpful, actually, but if you have any suggestions
> for how it could be improved, they are much welcome.
My beef is with potentially removing the ability to use an integer seed in
seed->random-state. It is useful and common. Many other languages
and schemes do it the same way. Its strengths and limitations are
indicated in the manual.
I could make a technical argument about why this procedure's calling
structure w.r.t. integers shouldn't change: but the technical argument
would just be an attempt to justify my personal opinion that a documented
API that I have used in scheme code that currently works fine shouldn't be
broken.
This is orthogonal to the bug in the procedure, though. A user should
be able to expect the for each integer seed between 0 and 2^N,
for some value of N, that the PRNG will return a different series.
It works that way in most languages that allow integer seeds.
Thanks,
Mike
- Re: Improve `seed->random-state' in stable-2.0?, (continued)
- Re: Improve `seed->random-state' in stable-2.0?, Mike Gran, 2012/01/20
- Re: Improve `seed->random-state' in stable-2.0?, Andy Wingo, 2012/01/23
- Re: Improve `seed->random-state' in stable-2.0?, Mike Gran, 2012/01/23
- Re: Improve `seed->random-state' in stable-2.0?, Andy Wingo, 2012/01/23
- Re: Improve `seed->random-state' in stable-2.0?,
Mike Gran <=
- Re: Improve `seed->random-state' in stable-2.0?, Andy Wingo, 2012/01/24