... of pseudorandoms different than C's, at least gcc's. Fortran's is, by reputation, good, while C's--at least my vanilla rand call with Microsoft--was famously clunky. Is it all the same stuff stuff with different window-dressing? The C standard rand() is often considered a poor random number generator, with RAND_MAX required to be at least 32767. Many include rand48() which generates 48 random bits, and uses ...

... of pseudorandoms different than C's, at least gcc's. Fortran's is, by reputation, good, while C's--at least my vanilla rand call with Microsoft--was famously clunky. Is it all the same stuff stuff with different window-dressing? The C standard rand() is often considered a poor random number generator, with RAND_MAX required to be at least 32767. Many include rand48() which generates 48 random bits, and uses a 48 bit seed. ...

... of pseudorandoms different than C's, at least gcc's. Fortran's is, by reputation, good, while C's--at least my vanilla rand call with Microsoft--was famously clunky. Is it all the same stuff stuff with different window-dressing? Neither C nor Fortran specify the underlying PRNG algorithm. One should not be surprised to find that the PRNG is in fact the same on a given system for both languages. With gfortran, you can call ...

...597273182964842497 2^59. The overall period exceeds 2^123. What I don't see here is what makes fortran's implementation of pseudorandoms different than C's, at least gcc's. Fortran's is, by reputation, good, while C's--at least my vanilla rand call with Microsoft--was famously clunky. Is it all the same stuff stuff with different window-dressing? -- What men value in this world is not rights but privileges. 7 H. L. Mencken

...ok 2 - mkfh() should return a FH ok 3 - The object isa ExtUtils::Packlist ok 4 - obj should be tied underneath ok 5 - TIEHASH() should bless into class ok 6 - TIEHASH() should store packfile name ok 7 - STORE() should stuff stuff in data member ok 8 - check FETCH() ok 9 - FIRSTKEY() should be consistent ok 10 - and NEXTKEY() should also be consistent ok 11 - EXISTS() should find keys ok 12 - DELETE() should delete cleanly ok 13 - CLEAR...

In article <13j8mur4hh8li3c@corp.supernews.com> stuff@stuff.com "SomeBloke" writes: [...] Who are these cross-posting twats, blatering on about a product that'll be regarded as junk a year from now? Jeez, get a life. -- Andrew Stephenson

... GORKie's Dirty Laundry (Apologies to Don Henley) I make my living off of suing you. I make up stuff, stuff I think fools you. People love it when I lose, They love dirty laundry. <snipped for brevity!> ... found the link to it from Google Groups. Also, has anyone noticed that Google Groups is not retrieving old articles? I'm having trouble finding older articles, a lot of stuff is vanishing.

... the failures of Gordon Roy Parker, but we gave it a try. We hope that it is suitable. GORKie's Dirty Laundry (Apologies to Don Henley) I make my living off of suing you. I make up stuff, stuff I think fools you. People love it when I lose, They love dirty laundry. Well, I said I was a savior, but I wound up here. I think I look good, but I am never clear. Come and ...

... to lyricizing the failures of Gordon Roy Parker, but we gave it a try. We hope that it is suitable. GORKie's Dirty Laundry (Apologies to Don Henley) I make my living off of suing you. I make up stuff, stuff I think fools you. People love it when I lose, They love dirty laundry. Well, I said I was a savior, but I wound up here. I think I look good, but I am never clear. Come and eat ...

...it comes to lyricizing the failures of Gordon Roy Parker, but we gave it a try. We hope that it is suitable. GORKie's Dirty Laundry (Apologies to Don Henley) I make my living off of suing you. I make up stuff, stuff I think fools you. People love it when I lose, They love dirty laundry. Well, I said I was a savior, but I wound up here. I think I look good, but I am never clear. Come and eat my ribs,...