Subject: Re: [boost] [random] new threefry random engine
From: Thijs (M.A.) van den Berg (thijs_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-04-22 03:33:40
On Apr 22, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 04/21/2014 02:28 PM, John Salmon wrote:
>> I would love to see a boost implementation that captured and exposed
>> this capability for general use. Thus, I think a better approach is
>> as follows:
>> - define a new "RandomFunction" concept that dscribes/enforces the
>> essential, common features of the randomizing function in Threefry,
>> Philox, ARS and other counter-based random generators.
> I don't think this is a particularly useful
> abstraction. Most users should not care at
> all about this, since they should be using
> the predefined engine typedefs. If more
> similar generators are added later, then the
> implementation can be adjusted to factor
> out the common boilerplate, but I really
> don't see the point of creating a whole new
> concept for this.
I'm still working a bit on the boilerplate and at some point it should be correct, then John and/or I could use it as a template for other similar engines and factor out the common elements. Additional engines should be easier because a lot of time is spend on the boilerplate and that will indeed be very similar across these engines. Since John knows all about the algorithmic parts and has implementations it should be easier to add those too.
How about the following steps:
* first finalize the current threefry submission and make sure that all aspects are boost compliant. That would finalize my initial mission.
* check the scalability of the naming convention of the predefined typedefs.
* then work on additional engines, possibly factoring our common boilerplate. For this I think John should take the lead?
> In Christ,
> Steven Watanabe
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk