Re: rigorously predictable random numbers

[Lawrence Velázquez <larryv@xxxxxxx>]

On Fri, May 3, 2024, at 9:58 AM, Ray Andrews wrote:
> I noted in those links that Lawrence 
> posted that every one of them considered the existing behavior to be 
> 'obviously' wrong.  And it is 'obviously' wrong intuitively whatever 
> it's merits may be.  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 
> bash can offer a 'real' random number then that's established practice 
> 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.

-- 
vq