Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [random] new threefry random engine
From: John Salmon (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-08 13:43:26

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Thijs van den Berg <thijs_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> > I think my version now provides you with the 'plain old engine' concept
> > that you're looking for. It also *allows* you to do interesting things
> > with restart(), but you can ignore those methods if you wish..
> >
> For me that’s a good compromise, but it’s up to Steven and (perhaps some
> others?) to decide what he wants with the interface. In an earlier version
> I gave public access to counter manipulators and those were questioned
> because it was non-standard interface, and so I made them private.
Yes, I'd like to hear what others think of the new
'bona-fide-engine-with-restart-extension' design.

> Your version had a nice feature that mine lacked so I adoptied it: the
> > ability to control the output type, independently of the choice of
> > pseudo-random function. With this addition, I can produce 32-bit output
> > from a prf that internally uses 64-bit arithmetic (or vice versa). The
> > template is now:
> Thanks. I wanted to provide both 32 and 64 bit random numbers because 32
> bit is still used a lot. My first implementation used a fast
> reinterpret_cast<> but that was non endian invariant, and so I had to fix
> that. I think the interface and consistent behaviour is more important than
> speed for boost random, and I agree with that.

My implementation is intended to be endian-independent. But as they say -
"if it hasn't been tested, it's doesn't work", and I haven't had a chance
to test on a big-endian machine, so proceed with caution..

> I think the most enjoyable way forward would be join effort into a single
> submission instead of competing ones? For that you will need to fix the
> copyright and license. What’s your view on this? Are you doing this in
> corporate time or personal time?

Yes, I think it make sense to merge. Perhaps we should start using the
recommended workflow,
Especially if that would make things easier for Steven.

As you can see, my code is released under a fairly permissive license that
is very close to the BSD 3-clause license. But it's not the Boost
Software License, and I understand why that's a problem. I'm working on
getting permission to release it under the Boost Software License.


> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at