Re: RFC 208 (v2) crypt() default salt

2000-09-21 Thread Bart Lateur
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:37:36 -0400 (EDT), Andy Dougherty wrote: >Still, even for me, I have never encountered a case where I wanted to >maintain the same rand() sequence and also use a one-arg crypt(). > >> I will add a note aboput this to the RFC. If there are no other >> comments, I will freez

Re: RFC 208 (v2) crypt() default salt

2000-09-21 Thread Andy Dougherty
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote: > And the problem you describe is not really a problem. There has never > been any guarantee that a program would produce the same sequence of > random numbers after a change to the Perl binary. > random numbers after a change to the Perl binary. M

Re: RFC 208 (v2) crypt() default salt

2000-09-21 Thread Mark-Jason Dominus
Bart Lateur: > >If there are no objections, I will freeze this in twenty-four hours. > > Oh, I have a small one: I feel that this pseudo-random salt should NOT > affect the standard random generator. I'll clarify: by default, if you > feed the pseudo-random generator with a certain number, you'l

Re: Multiple random number generators (was Re: RFC 208 (v2) crypt() default salt)

2000-09-17 Thread Bart Lateur
On 16 Sep 2000 22:40:24 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote: >BL> Therefore, crypt() should have it's own pseudo-random generator. A >BL> simple task, really: same code, but a different seed variable. > >Should rand be extended to be able to support multiple random number >generators? Not just srand().

Multiple random number generators (was Re: RFC 208 (v2) crypt() default salt)

2000-09-17 Thread Chaim Frenkel
> "BL" == Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: BL> Therefore, crypt() should have it's own pseudo-random generator. A BL> simple task, really: same code, but a different seed variable. Should rand be extended to be able to support multiple random number generators? =item srand EXPR, RAND

Re: RFC 208 (v2) crypt() default salt

2000-09-14 Thread Bart Lateur
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:58:46 -0400, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote: >If there are no objections, I will freeze this in twenty-four hours. Oh, I have a small one: I feel that this speudo-random salt should NOT affect the standard random generator. I'll clarify: by default, if you feed the pseudo-random

Re: RFC 208 (v2) crypt() default salt

2000-09-14 Thread Mark-Jason Dominus
> =head1 TITLE > > crypt() default salt > > =head1 VERSION > > Maintainer: Mark Dominus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 11 Sep 2000 > Last Modified: 13 Sep 2000 > Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Number: 208 > Version: 2 > Status: Developing If there are no objections, I will freez