[Raymond Hettinger]
> ...
> The C code I saw is covered by a BSD license -- I don't
> know if that's an issue or not.
That's fine, provided it doesn't have the dreaded "advertising clause". I
personally don't care whether it does -- it's the FSF that has bug up their
butt about that one. I expect we'd have to reproduce their copyright notice
in the docs somewhere; yup:
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution.
I think we *ought* to perform a similar courtesy for, e.g., the Tcl/Tk and
zlib components shipped with the Python Windows installer too.
> As for implementation difficulty or accuracy, the code is so short
> and clear that there isn't a savings from re-using the C code.
That isn't the point here. If you use Nishimura and Matsumoto's code as
close to verbatim as possible, then that's the perfect answer to your
earlier point:
> On the minus side, random number generation is a much disputed
> topic, occassionly requiring full disclosure of seeds and source.
Nothing *could* be more fully disclosed than their source code: it's
extremely well known to every worker in the field, and has gotten critical
review from the smartest eyeballs in the world.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4