On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun 01 Aug 2010 20:44, Andreas Rottmann <a.rottm...@gmx.at> writes: > >> I've spotted an issue with your fix: the way 64-bit random numbers are >> generated in scm_random() is bogus; > > Grr, indeed. Fix applied, thanks. > >>> Would you be interested in [importing another rng]? We would need >>> some test suites too, I think, and possibly changes to the scm_t_rng >>> structure. >>> >> Sorry, I don't have the inclination to work on this ATM. Also, random >> number tests are kinda hard to write -- it's random stuff, after all >> :-). > > Too bad, we could really use it, and now is the time for any needed ABI > breaks. Thanks anyway for the fix!
I may have time for doing this later on but definitely not this month; do you guys have any sort of time frame for a release? And also: is there any way to set the lower bound of a random call?
