[Boost-users] [random]: several issues

Subject: [Boost-users] [random]: several issues
From: Thomas Mang (Thomas.Mang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-21 16:50:43

HI,

After some time I came back to the boost random library, and several 
things I noticed earlier have not changed since years ago. I hereby ask 
what the present state of ideas regarding these ideas is.

Here's my list:

a) The library itself provides files for random deviates of 
distributions not given in the documentation (e.g. poisson, gamma) etc. 
I find it truly sad that implementation and documentation is that out of 
synchronisation

b) Several distributions require the engine to return a uniform deviate 
between [0,1), while other's don't have this prerequisite. I find this 
extremely error prone and purely documented (it is documented, but it 
should be so clearer, and especially, louder). Worse, I find it even 
harder (or impossible) to find out which range the engines return. I am 
not sure if there is any engine returning this range per se, or if I 
have always to go through uniform_01.
Worst of all, there is neither a compile time check nor a runtime check 
if that [0,1) result-requirement of the engine holds (as far as I have 
seen the code) - I absolutely fail to see why such a critical assert is 
completely missing, also given the poor state of the documentation.
The poisson and gamma for example also fall in this category, but are 
not documented at all. I consider this highly dangerous.

c) Random numbers are tightly linked to statistical distributions, 
offered by the library of it's own. Wouldn't it be convenient to try to 
integrate the whole distribution part of the random numbers more closely 
into that library? Presently they are too confusingly standalone.

d) Is there anyone actually responsible for the random library at the 
moment? Is it still under active development / maintained, or is old 
code simply propagating from release to release ? [No offense intended, 
but above issues let me have doubts regarding active management).

thanks,
Thomas