From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c7fc42d2c6a0eedc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-04 19:03:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!wn13feed!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc54.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Steve" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: Ada2005 random X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.211.13.75 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc54 1049511757 12.211.13.75 (Sat, 05 Apr 2003 03:02:37 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 03:02:37 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 03:02:37 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:35945 Date: 2003-04-05T03:02:37+00:00 List-Id: "Lutz Donnerhacke" wrote in message news:slrnb8r5nt.ov.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de... [snip] > Nobody says, that the time is included in the seed.... Actually they did (or at least based on a time-dependent state): LRM A.5.2(34) Sets the state of the specified generator to one that is an unspecified function of the value of the parameter Initiator (or to a time-dependent state, if only a generator parameter is specified). The latter form of the procedure is known as the time-dependent Reset procedure. In my example a new "Generator" (presumably containing a seed value) is created each time the routine is called. This is likely to give different results than propagting the generator through a sequence of calls to Random. > And more important: Even > if the random seed is generated from the time, the generation of random > values from the seed does have completely different statistical properties > than generating a seed from the time. > > Therefore your code is wrong, wrong, and wrong. Don't use it! BTW: Just because I gave an example of how it "might" be done, doesn't mean I think it's a good method. The fact that a new "generator" is created with each call is somewhat dubious. Steve (The Duck)