From: Jos Hickson (jos.hickson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-05 04:08:45
On 04/06/07, Andy <atompkins_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I am favoring number 4, unless it will not produce good uuids. Then I
> favor number 5.
> I guess I am looking for direction as to how to proceed.
I prefer number 5. All you need do then is provide a get_seed()
method that generates a decent seed; with number 4 it might well take
a lot more time to implement and test a good source of random numbers
and then it might add a extra dimension to maintaining the library.
It seems to me that Boost.Random exists then it should be used by
default as the source of random number generators unless, of course,
what it provides is not good enough but I presume that is not the
-- Jos Hickson Software Engineer RawFlow Inc Old Pump House | 19 Hooper Street | London E1 8BU International: +44 (0)207 480 4220 Fax: +44 (0)207 481 4343 URL: www.rawflow.com *** RawFlow: Peer Streaming for All ***
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk