Re: [RFC] [Under Discussion] Random Extension 4.0

Hi On 2/21/22 03:57, Go Kudo wrote:

I am sorry for the delay in replying.

Don't worry, there was a weekend inbetween and I totally understand that one wants to take their weekend off.

Thank you for the clear explanation. It is true that the RFC in its current form lacks explanation. I'll try to fix this first.

Sounds good.

Also, as I look into other languages' implementations, I see the need to add some RNGs such as PCG. I will update the RFC to include these.

I suggest you avoid "feature creep" within the RFC. Additional engines can be added easily later on if the need arises. But for now it's more important to get a reliable basis that one can build onto. Having a choice of a multitude of different engine just distracts from that goal and can be confusing for the user. With xoshiro256** there's a very good choice that already is part of the RFC, no need to have something else that might or might not be slightly better in some case. Best regards Tim Düsterhus