Hi again, 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. Again, without context, I think this is not the point: random_device is meant to be just a simple high level wrapper around things like dev/random, inspired by facilities like dev/random on unix-like OSes. The brutal "fall back" we have now in place wouldn't be useful anyway for the uses Marc is talking about, because there is no way to provide a seed. That said, I can't check right now C++11 about random_device, I suppose Uli has already ;) Paolo
