From: Andy (atompkins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-07 11:40:10
Matthias Troyer <troyer_at_[hidden]> wrote in
> On 6 May 2007, at 14:37, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Matthias Troyer wrote:
>>> On 5 May 2007, at 06:16, Peter Dimov wrote:
>>>> * I agree that the time(0) seed is unacceptable. A good source of
>>>> probably deserves its own library. It's also not easy to make it
>>>> header-only. One compromise could be for the create function to
>>>> take an
>>>> Engine argument, but this takes away the simplicity.
>>> How about just adding an additional create function that takes an
>> The existing create function is dangerous as it doesn't generate
>> unique identifiers. We can't fix that by adding more overloads.
> I fully agree that it is very dangerous, especially on parallel
> machines. However, in addition to fixing this, it would be good to
> have the engine be customizable.
Does the solution I presented here:
solve the problem? For parallel machines?
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk