On Jun 29, 2016 10:03 PM, "Leigh" <lei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think I've caught up on everything discussed now. > > One thing I would like to point out, when people have searched for > "legitimate uses" of mt_rand(), you should have been looking for > legitimate uses of mt_srand() - this is the functionality that will be > broken. > > On 16 June 2016 at 03:21, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > There are ways to achieve what you want in a nice way while not breaking > > things. Let consider them. > > > > Cheers, > > Pierre > > So what would you suggest? mt_rand_mode() with constants for correct > and legacy? (defaulting to correct, and a single fcall for users to > get the old behaviour back)
Yes that would make it. Even if i would prefer the other way for at least one version.
