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.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.
Not exactly a crisis, still I think I'm not alone in being surprised by the current behavior.Also, seven discussions over ten years doesn't exactly scream "everyone is super confused by this".
But I have noticed a strong deference to tradition and consensus, so it at least does not hurt that bash has 'real' random numbers.Copying bash's "established practice" is not a reason to do anything.
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.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.