Since ⎕RL is defined as starting at a specific value in their language manual, and IBM APL 2 operates that way, I can imagine someone testing that value in a program to see if any random numbers had been generated previously. (I agree it is a stupid and not entirely valid test, but I cannot predict how other people will use a standard...)
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com> wrote: > Because adopting a clearly arbitrary value that provides absolutely no > benefit, instead of something slightly more logical while still conforming > with the spec is, in my opinion, the better way to go. > > No one is going to fork the project over this, so this is in the hands of > Jürgen. Have have own opinion and I've made it clear. No need to discuss > this further I think. > > Regards, > Elias > > > On 2 July 2014 11:09, Blake McBride <blake1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> No need to argue. Nowhere is the random number generator algorithm >> specified, but ⎕RL is. I thought we long ago agreed that, except for >> extensions, we were attempting to match the IBM APL standard - for better >> or worse. Additionally, in any area where it is arbitrary or pointless, >> why not just match the standard and avoid controversy whether you think it >> is meaningless or not? >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I'd argue because GNU APL uses a different random number generator, so >>> using the same RL value is pointless at best, and can raise unfulfilled >>> expectations and confusion at worst. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Elias >>> >>> >>> On 2 July 2014 10:57, Blake McBride <blake1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> As I've stated before, I am not smart enough to understand that spec. >>>> IBM's language manual is readable, and the value it is clear about is what >>>> I expected. Also, I just tested IBM APL 2. Initial ⎕RL is 16807. If any >>>> value is valid, why not match IBM APL 2 and their Language Manual? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The standard says the following: >>>>> >>>>> *"The initial value of random-link in a clear-workspace is that member >>>>> of the internal-* >>>>> *value-set for random-link given by the implementation-parameter >>>>> initial-random-link."* >>>>> >>>>> So, setting it to 1 seems to be reasonable enough. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Elias >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2 July 2014 10:07, Blake McBride <blake1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> According to the IBM APL2 Language Manual (page 421 AND page 322), >>>>>> ⎕RL initial value, and upon )CLEAR should be 16807. GNU APL seems to be >>>>>> setting it to 1. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Blake >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
