Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?
From: Stephan T. Lavavej (stl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-02 16:05:40
> the hard part is generating a cryptographically secure random number.
> I don't believe C++ 11 even has such a secure generator in <random> even ...
The Standard indirectly suggests that random_device should be such a generator, and VC guarantees this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk