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 thatâs a good compromise, but itâs 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
> 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. Whatâs 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, https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/StartModMaint.
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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk