From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from zero.zsh.org (zero.zsh.org [IPv6:2a02:898:31:0:48:4558:7a:7368]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C21260B6 for ; Sat, 4 May 2024 01:43:43 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zsh.org; s=rsa-20210803; h=List-Archive:List-Owner:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Id:Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Subject:To:From:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Message-Id: MIME-Version:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=T0OLEtCsT/zQvg4mahjVuyd3erkIXir6DWASU6qKncM=; b=P5jZ43bACG2N+rCTjnyKKVJVhb /HLZ/ozcgrj2ENqLzZ76zCCdrZ9qUOX0g6rzhWfp/tKiojxPySQj56LOUV54dIamuj9ENXF+pLFER 0tBO+uwxfiglBkmZLx3k64IpRSfiys1BZYXTwLSOsta6XZ6oLGtuPJ/SdsinQfygZLyBqUnuRqQhx 4PDDhQ8nx2B1ZA/cb6h45Nwin40zqs1ik0geuAZCqxLFOf6/ZM2f/Pakzmz3chXI4JlZ33491s9Ss HwM85Y3iC14aLVkPyTg9u5UPhdimZLj2WQ+GHBqEuRSRWRiWdV/REoCbb4nC2Bc9mQoDz4xTwsYPE XOzHHpCw==; Received: by zero.zsh.org with local id 1s32Z4-000IQv-Sy; Fri, 03 May 2024 23:43:42 +0000 Received: by zero.zsh.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1s32YX-000Hjb-0d; Fri, 03 May 2024 23:43:09 +0000 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfauth.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 666951200032 for ; Fri, 3 May 2024 19:43:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap48 ([10.202.2.98]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 03 May 2024 19:43:07 -0400 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrvddvuddgvdehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesth hqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepnfgrfihrvghntggvucggvghljoiiqhhuvgiiuceolhgr rhhrhihvseiishhhrdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefgffeghfehjeegtdeitd evgeehgeehjeefffeffeefieeguedvtdegtdetudeufeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlrghrrhihvhdomhgvshhmthhprghuth hhphgvrhhsohhnrghlihhthidqudduhedukeejjedtgedqudduledvjeefkeehqdhlrghr rhihvheppeiishhhrdhorhhgsehfrghsthhmrghilhdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: iaa214773:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 23C5631A0065; Fri, 3 May 2024 19:43:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-417-gddc99d37d-fm-hotfix-20240424.001-g2c179674 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <28ac4582-81f0-426e-9809-79fc7dbef71f@eastlink.ca> References: <2cfbd7e7-0930-44ba-a0bf-99d04762fb92@eastlink.ca> <3a1ecefa-b0f9-4e63-bbf2-bf4dc2822090@app.fastmail.com> <91cc2797-db97-41d4-a06b-207532ec13f4@eastlink.ca> <28ac4582-81f0-426e-9809-79fc7dbef71f@eastlink.ca> Date: Fri, 03 May 2024 19:42:37 -0400 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Lawrence_Vel=C3=A1zquez?= To: zsh-users@zsh.org Subject: Re: rigorously predictable random numbers Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Seq: 29879 Archived-At: X-Loop: zsh-users@zsh.org Errors-To: zsh-users-owner@zsh.org Precedence: list Precedence: bulk Sender: zsh-users-request@zsh.org X-no-archive: yes List-Id: List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: On Fri, May 3, 2024, at 9:58 AM, Ray Andrews wrote: > I noted in those links that Lawrence=20 > posted that every one of them considered the existing behavior to be=20 > 'obviously' wrong.=C2=A0 And it is 'obviously' wrong intuitively whate= ver=20 > it's merits may be.=C2=A0 A predictable random number isn't. This is just a consequence of the name "RANDOM", which unfortunately implies a property that the parameter doesn't quite have. There is nothing "'obviously' wrong" with repeatable pseudorandom sequences. Also, seven discussions over ten years doesn't exactly scream "everyone is super confused by this". > Besides, if=20 > bash can offer a 'real' random number then that's established practice=20 > so we should too. Copying bash's "established practice" is not a reason to do anything. Bash has plenty of misfeatures and poor design decisions that should not be imitated. If we choose to ship Clinton's module, it will be because it is useful, not because of any perceived need to catch up to another shell. --=20 vq