Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!tina.mrco.carleton.ca!knight
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: Random Number Generator
Message-ID: <knight.786649236@tina.mrco.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: Carleton University
References: <3bv4co$pj0@news-feed.delphi.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 17:40:36 GMT
Lines: 17

In <3bv4co$pj0@news-feed.delphi.com> jsutherland@BIX.com (Jeff Sutherland) writes:
>The accuracy of random number generators is heavily dependent on word  size
>and hardware and maybe even the compiler used.  How have you handled this
>in your project and what are your underlying assumptions?

While I'm all for checking randon number generators (I've seen lots of
bad ones), this is Smalltalk code. How could word size affect the
results? The worst thing it's going to do is make it run a little
slower. Certainly the hardware could have an effect (say if it was a
Pentium <grin>), but in general, we're not dealing with code that
suffers from integer overflow.

-- 
 Alan Knight                | The Object People
 knight@acm.org             | Smalltalk and OO Training and Consulting
 alan_knight@mindlink.bc.ca | 509-885 Meadowlands Dr.
 +1 613 225 8812            | Ottawa, Canada, K2C 3N2
