you still have control on the seed... just seed it
no because you need to add an extra outlet to [random] and prints out the seed value.
or even seed it with the system time on creation?
if one adds now this behaviour one need to put a flag for backward compatibility.
what if [seed( without argument would take the current system time?
this could be an idea but one need the second outlet.
ciao -Marco Matteo Markidis
2018-05-31 17:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com:
that's what I was suggesting ;)
2018-05-31 9:15 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at:
just an idea: what if [seed( without argument would take the current system time?
or even seed it with the system time on creation?
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2018 um 13:36 Uhr Von: "Peter P." peterparker@fastmail.com An: pd-list pd-list@lists.iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] Random
- Marco Matteo Markidis mm.markidis@gmail.com [2018-05-30 19:29]:
usually in random number generators one wants to have control on the
seed
because this allows to have the same numeric streams every time one
wants.
I thought about this and conclude that the help patch should mention the fact that the sequence is always the same even when the object is not explicitely seeded with the [seed ...< message.
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/li
stinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/li stinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list