Hi, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> ha scritto:
>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > >> This is done in the attached patch. It's rather ugly because of the >> business with the TR1 support. Is this really still needed? Can't >we >> remove that? It really makes not much sense for a random_device to >be >> predictable. > >Er, I haven't read the context, but for simulations physicists usually >require that random generators can be repeated, so 2 simulations with >the >same seed give the same results. But that may not be what you meant >with >predictable. I haven't read the context either (I will actually do that later today) but I guess a clarification can be useful for future contributions too: in general, we consider tr1 stuff frozen, we are going to barely fix very serious regressions caused eg, by the compiler becoming more conforming. Let's just leave tr1 alone. If some C++11 headers still interact with it (by now, shouldn't) let's split and tell apart more. Paolo
