On 12/12/22 06:47, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
The fact that you don't get different seeds is arguably something to mention in the help files.
One thing is that this is not a real feature as I see it, because you can't really control the number of [random] objects that were created before opening a particular patch.
this might be a problem in a live-coding context, but not otherwise (where you open your pre-built patch).
On the other hand, I can't believe people do rely on a [random] object
i can. easily. people are often not aware of their implicit assumptions. and there are quite a lot of implicit assumptions when it comes to random generators (e.g. most people will turn away in disgust when it their random generator will produce a totally random series that happens to have the same number repeated; see https://xkcd.com/221/)
in the actual context of [random] (which i've never seen repeat a random number "too often"), I think there are definitely pieces out there where the composer expects the "random" piece to sound like "that", and which will no longer be true if [random] uses different seeds for each instance).
giving the same output every time you open the patch. We have it in the documentation that using 'seed' is what you need for this and this is the only thing that can actually be done to guarantee the same sequence.
yes. (note, that i'm definitely not advocating to keep the fixed seed for [random].)
I don't think this will break anything but worst case scenario, we can have those 'compatibilty flags' IOhaness is not much a fan of :)
indeed (both that we can have one; and that i'm not a fan thereof)
gmadsr IOhannes