Re: [RFC] RNG fixes

On 6/22/16, 5:19 PM, "Nikita Popov" <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote: >I haven't been following this thread, just jumping in to comment on this >point. My suggestion to deprecate rand() was motivated by the fact that >rand() produces extremely low quality random numbers on Windows, while at >the same time having the name people are most likely to try first if they >want to have a random number. It's a bad state of things if there's a >rand() and an mt_rand() function and the latter is preferable in *all* >situations, while the former is more likely to be used. However, this >concern is completely alleviated by aliasing rand() to mt_rand(). If we >do this, I see no reason to deprecate rand(), at least in the short term. Alternatively, if you fix rand() by making *it* the new, fast, platform-independent RNG (e.g. Xoroshiro128+) and leave mt_rand() alone then: 1. The "bad state of things" you described is resolved. 2. The various complaints about mt_rand() become irrelevant because rand() will be preferable in *all* situations (except security and backwards compat). Tom