On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 at 14:19 Tom Worster <f...@thefsb.org> wrote: > Your fix seems fine for rand() but less so for mt_rand(). > > Applying this fix will break much less mt_rand()-using code than not > applying it will break rand()-using code. From that point of view, > applying it is the better choice. > > Otoh, it's like copy-pasting a weird old bug from rand() to mt_rand(). > The plan was to make rand() alias mt_rand(). Now I'm not sure that's a > smart plan. > > Tom >
I've pushed a fix that keeps the old behaviour for both I've un-aliased rand from mt_rand, added a min > max check to rand, and then call the common code with parameters reversed if necessary.
