Timeline for How good are current implementations of rand() in C?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 8, 2018 at 0:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSciComp/status/1060321173060419584 | ||
| Nov 7, 2018 at 23:28 | answer | added | Nox | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 7, 2018 at 17:37 | answer | added | Kirill | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 6, 2018 at 8:02 | history | edited | physkets | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Expanded title to clarify that I'm restricted to C
|
| Nov 5, 2018 at 12:31 | answer | added | Anton Menshov♦ | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 5, 2018 at 10:46 | comment | added | physkets | @BruceBecker The most important thing for me would be the non-existence of "correlations" in the random number sequence. The reason I did not add this is because it is very ill-defined: there are an infinite number of correlation metrics definable. | |
| Nov 5, 2018 at 9:25 | comment | added | Bruce Becker | In order to answer this question you should at least provide some objective metric by which the implementations can be measured. What about rand is important to you ? The speed ? the distribution of the random numbers ? | |
| Nov 5, 2018 at 9:15 | history | edited | physkets | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added link to current rand()
|
| Nov 5, 2018 at 9:00 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 5, 2018 at 13:19 | |||||
| Nov 5, 2018 at 8:56 | history | asked | physkets | CC BY-SA 4.0 |