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=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE, 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 85A5F25EBB for ; Sat, 4 May 2024 03:21:50 +0200 (CEST) ARC-Seal: i=1; cv=none; a=rsa-sha256; d=zsh.org; s=rsa-20210803; t=1714785710; b=h3UMYzdVdAG1B0+fQNFPTbE1YpfTxtNOM5Hyr33T/qsXHjaTmqk+K173s4rF9TOFgUO4qV71e8 4kKstKR9V0uhU8GkK+OjBckLDUPM4n80qNlnSRXsT3hS5aRMBhJ05p2PTIA5SYnyv5RUdSj6M3 N/sPup/xFWIP0Tx4LUCa25/ideR2JFmDU/igguqntGhQHH+lWChVfp+YNBTyvnD+rvu7sLngnD WM7EsoF8PmNZspdu1npmd0jtnp1MThmrBvRyNwisZB0KJRw46w9+tOR5nYvrnPex+C8JqLaz+K 0orZN2DTwH2hr3tq65JtXC9FQQFEPoFrimAPLD6VrflQSw==; ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; zsh.org; iprev=pass (mta01.eastlink.ca) smtp.remote-ip=24.224.136.30; dmarc=none header.from=eastlink.ca; arc=none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=zsh.org; s=rsa-20210803; t=1714785710; bh=57J+daVfsDvuvnDz+e9wxQLR++ucYX13BQfOP+z7rao=; h=List-Archive:List-Owner:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Help: List-Id:Sender:In-Reply-To:From:References:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Content-Type:DKIM-Signature; b=FRmcFTGR62MabSmtajrRpguGcSaLeg8NU8cbaX/8uzqzKhO1ESQOx2ZXFMX0blpJbqYHOd+8Ym 9KRAyEQIf+GjZqK9Kbz4yVpvAWMeD5gqDDuXwQ0wnf+wQ9y7F9J1mEJuXjTx8MplU+HUc8m1wd u/JbiyWx4PRZ1/eDaJltMuNoiICWnq1y4CFkOQMfBxwXBmdRELRpbfqOmpgz5rK7zb4Km07qpa Yps5ksMIgeNUlncdhtUhtsskwMGFRpaiw4oHiilBB0CL4g9xRI9S6bpJ4FNJ7hRQA/G8a2z6WZ ZhlsI2ON8TaLxIrz3gQ0/GpeIh1GYff+wIZsNH46DlXnvg==; 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:In-reply-to:From:References:To: Subject:MIME-version:Date:Message-id:Content-type:Reply-To:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=9A/R8lzOL+jBc+qnnXzZ4pbMPTUXdKAfGSr9nHgURjs=; b=sJNAgERLxP8BDFPWv6T2/I2RUC uLlOdiX+ZoZ2TJxI2al8GCUrGbR7vZmgaYgN8LvIggkg5wYUCc0mb3hrHyuPUHnnDW1aNsYjDInxj 86gfP9v4CFxmGqJburAV8aehqMi+n68Msvi3WX1ALAT2/1zCc8KT7t8ioXNNSMEOUNCwCiQo7rSOo nkNuyWU/pRH+sLBxsTZ1wPjdfTtrHmwxe5SlenxqMyk2b9svkLWkj7XZ1oycgptQVB250fKipW3Uc uqEZjoL0GgrLlqifZ+vt/A6BOfZZXNHGnJnRXLzR+8AJqPjQ2igtugLRIiZp/Ucby80eHpvTs0QyV ALjBv5mg==; Received: by zero.zsh.org with local id 1s3461-0000Qe-Sg; Sat, 04 May 2024 01:21:49 +0000 Authentication-Results: zsh.org; iprev=pass (mta01.eastlink.ca) smtp.remote-ip=24.224.136.30; dmarc=none header.from=eastlink.ca; arc=none Received: from mta01.eastlink.ca ([24.224.136.30]:44261) by zero.zsh.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1s344F-000PeZ-Vk; Sat, 04 May 2024 01:20:00 +0000 Received: from csp02.eastlink.ca ([71.7.199.167]) by mta01.eastlink.ca ([24.224.136.30]) with ESMTPS id <0SCX08UG0T15VXD1@mta01.eastlink.ca> for zsh-users@zsh.org; Fri, 03 May 2024 22:19:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.0.11] (host-24-207-19-13.public.eastlink.ca [24.207.19.13]) by csp02.eastlink.ca ([71.7.199.167]) with ESMTPSA id 344EsRw0nxAjx344EszWgJ (version=TLSv1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256); Fri, 03 May 2024 22:19:59 -0300 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=EfprQ+mC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=66358d3f a=e7T7DzMKK1R988ZCg0wLyw==:117 a=e7T7DzMKK1R988ZCg0wLyw==:17 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=fG1IE8UqRhpMLx_v7tUA:9 a=3ZKOabzyN94A:10 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=ZLGELXoPAAAA:8 a=DnAk8wgBvqwIHO4rBNwA:9 a=jxo8Xhv-56HEWPGw:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=CFiPc5v16LZhaT-MVE1c:22 X-Vade-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrvddvuddggeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecugfetuffvnffkpffmpdfqfgfvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurheptgfkffggfgfuvfhfhfgjsegrtderredtvdejnecuhfhrohhmpeftrgihucetnhgurhgvfihsuceorhgrhigrnhgurhgvfihssegvrghsthhlihhnkhdrtggrqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefhteethfevgeeuvdelgefgvdevudefueduffdvgfelvddvgfdtieegueeuleeifeenucfkphepvdegrddvtdejrdduledrudefnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehinhgvthepvdegrddvtdejrdduledrudefpdhhvghloheplgduledvrdduieekrddtrdduudgnpdhmrghilhhfrhhomheprhgrhigrnhgurhgvfihssegvrghsthhlihhnkhdrtggrpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopedvpdhrtghpthhtohepreerpdhrtghpthhtohepiihshhdquhhsvghrshesiihshhdrohhrghdpghgvthdqkghiphfrrghsshifugepthhruhgv X-Vade-Score: 0 X-Vade-State: 0 X-EL-AUTH: rayandrews@eastlink.ca Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------b3XCCvzWqZDFPFl70fAwlzl6" Message-id: Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 18:19:57 -0700 MIME-version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: rigorously predictable random numbers To: zsh-users@zsh.org 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> Content-language: en-US From: Ray Andrews In-reply-to: X-Seq: 29884 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: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------b3XCCvzWqZDFPFl70fAwlzl6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2024-05-03 16:42, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > 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. Indeed.  As I said, the current behavior suits my current need perfectly.  Still I'd say that a 'real' random number should be available.  One can't have too many resources. > Also, seven discussions over ten years doesn't exactly scream > "everyone is super confused by this". Not exactly a crisis, still I think I'm not alone in being surprised by the current behavior. > Copying bash's "established practice" is not a reason to do anything. But I have noticed a strong deference to tradition and consensus, so it at least does not hurt that bash has 'real' random numbers. > 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. I'd not put it that way.  Of course it would have to be a genuine improvement. 'Catching up' is not a mentality I think any of us have.  It seems to be near universally agreed that zsh is by far the more advanced shell. Still a precedent exists.  It is to be noted casually, that's all. --------------b3XCCvzWqZDFPFl70fAwlzl6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 2024-05-03 16:42, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
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.
Indeed.  As I said, the current behavior suits my current need perfectly.  Still I'd say that a 'real' random number should be available.  One can't have too many resources.
Also, seven discussions over ten years doesn't exactly scream
"everyone is super confused by this".
Not exactly a crisis, still I think I'm not alone in being surprised by the current behavior.
Copying bash's "established practice" is not a reason to do anything.
But I have noticed a strong deference to tradition and consensus, so it at least does not hurt that bash has 'real' random numbers.  
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.
I'd not put it that way.  Of course it would have to be a genuine improvement. 'Catching up' is not a mentality I think any of us have.  It seems to be near universally agreed that zsh is by far the more advanced shell. Still a precedent exists.  It is to be noted casually, that's all.



    

    

  


--------------b3XCCvzWqZDFPFl70fAwlzl6--