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/listinfo/pd-list
>

_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list


_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list